The Politics of Panic

The recent wave of terror attacks and shoot-outs has visibly shaken the confidence of the ruling alliance in New Delhi.  The capital faced its tenth attack in just nine years. But as a swathe of cities form Bangalore in the south to Jaipur in the west and Varanasi in the east has been affected, the larger question looms in the mind. How will all this affect the fate of those entrusted four years ago with the destinies of the country?

For its part, the Congress has sung a new tune, one of the need for strong anti-terror laws. Its highly experienced General Secretary, Digvijay Singh even clarified that the party had never opposed the hanging of Afzal Guru. Veerappa Moily, a former chief minister and a member of the policy caucus that advises Rahul Gandhi, has also spoken out for a new and more stringent law.

There is a sense of hubris in all this.  Through the Eighties even as Punjab was on the boil, it was Congress that drew strength from the call for stronger policing. It even fought the general elections of 1984 on the slogan of an all out struggle to keep the nation together after bullets felled one of India's most outstanding leaders.

Yet, the emphasis on dealing with Khalistani terror was never matched by a similar zeal in bringing to book the killers of innocent, defenceless, unarmed Sikhs in November 1984. As has been ably documented in the book, When a Tree shook Delhi, it took over a decade and a half for even an acknowledgement at the very top of the party of the injustice of what happened in Delhi and elsewhere in north India. Manoj Mitta and HS Phoolka painstakingly document how in one case after the other the police and politicians stood aside while innocents were killed. There were exceptions but they were few and far between.

The parallel matters. Most recruits for groups like the Indian Mujahideen today or the Babbar Khalsa in yesteryear are young men with a modicum of education. No democracy can sit back and watch such groups take the law into their own hands and every citizen has the right to expect firm action to ensure such terror ends. But there is a larger political dimension all too easy to miss. Mao Ze Dong, himself an expert in using the barrel of a gun to achieve political ends, put it: fish can only swim if there is water in the sea.  It is only by depriving men in arms of their support base that their designs can be set at rest.

Police measures while vital are no substitute for the wider political offensive that is the need of the hour. No antidote could be stronger than showing that the sword of justice is even-handed.

Bihar shows the way. Nitish Kumar's government by convicting the rioters of Bhagalpur has done more than all other governments in recent years combined to show that minorities too can expect the law to save their lives.  This is in contrast with the foot-dragging with the rioters of Mumbai in 1993. This has remained the case despite the very clear findings of the Sri Krishna Commission. It is a denouement not so very different from that of Gujarat of 2002.

When Congress leaders speak of an anti terror law it is akin to music for the ears of the BJP. The catch is that the politics of panic that followed from the attacks suits the opposition party best.

After all, if it is a strong State that is the answer, Why settle for those who intermittently believe in it? The B-team cannot beat the A-team on the latter's home terrain.

Conversely, a firm stand that any attacks that menace a citizen's life will meet with strong defence of the rule of law can act as a balm. It will cut the ground away from the extremist view that violence alone begets results. But if the Congress persists with the politics of panic, the consequences will be far reaching. India will pay the price.