11-27-2006, 10:25 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>State of inalert </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
<b>Securing votes is UPA's only credo</b>
How many wake-up calls does a Government pretending to be asleep need?<b> An official no less than the chief of the Intelligence Bureau, Mr ESL Narasimhan, has broken the tradition of maintaining service-period discretion (normally such things are "aired" only after retirement) by telling a conference of police heads about the need to revert to stronger anti-terror laws. Mr Narasimhan has attempted to highlight the phenomenon of "new threats" which were "not envisioned" when the country's legal architecture was framed. </b>The IB chief has gone on to describe the "modern environment" with all its technological support systems that obviate the need for terrorists to travel to their targets. He obviously means cyber terror, mass murder involving biological weapons and the like. The embarrassment that this must cause the UPA is deserved. <b>In 2005, the UPA Government got President APJ Abdul Kalam to tell the joint session of Parliament that it was discarding POTA, the only updated piece of legislation developed against terrorism</b>. Unstated though implicit was the objective to "appease" the minority community.<b> However, now that the IB chief has stressed on the need for a stronger law to deal with terrorism, the UPA's political chicanery stands thoroughly exposed. The weakness of the state under the existing legal framework against the modern scourge of terrorism has been discussed ad nauseam in Parliament</b>. Countless seminars and editorials have been held and written. However, the UPA Government remains oblivious and, in the process, culpably presides over the emasculation of the Indian state. The thrust given in the early 2000s to strengthen the national legal framework and equip it to check the mushroom growth of terrorism has been lost. POTA's repeal has thus left the security forces without the necessary legal back-up. Pseudo-secular rhetoric has repeatedly hijacked the discourse on national security for which the people of the country are unlikely to forgive the UPA Government.
<b>Viewed against Home Minister Shivraj Patil's estimation about marine jihadis preparing to attack India's nuclear power plants along the coast, Mr Narasimhan's courageous remarks are actually an expression of frustration felt by honest elements within the security establishment</b>. Not so long back, the National Security Adviser had himself gone public with similar statements. But the spectre of "political cost" looms large over the UPA. <b>Its Communist backers would willingly mortgage the lives of countless innocent people rather than fight the likes of Lashkar-e-Tayyeba. Since </b>1995, the year TADA was allowed to lapse, the stock response to accusations of diluting the national response to terrorism has been that "dialogue" with terror's patrons is preferable to confrontation. This is akin to fish seeking an understanding with fishermen. The Indian leadership would do well to study the international response to terror. Strong anti-terror laws may not be an insurance against jihadis of the fidayeen variety. Nonetheless, these would be an apt indication of a nation's resolve to bring terrorists to justice.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pioneer Edit Desk
<b>Securing votes is UPA's only credo</b>
How many wake-up calls does a Government pretending to be asleep need?<b> An official no less than the chief of the Intelligence Bureau, Mr ESL Narasimhan, has broken the tradition of maintaining service-period discretion (normally such things are "aired" only after retirement) by telling a conference of police heads about the need to revert to stronger anti-terror laws. Mr Narasimhan has attempted to highlight the phenomenon of "new threats" which were "not envisioned" when the country's legal architecture was framed. </b>The IB chief has gone on to describe the "modern environment" with all its technological support systems that obviate the need for terrorists to travel to their targets. He obviously means cyber terror, mass murder involving biological weapons and the like. The embarrassment that this must cause the UPA is deserved. <b>In 2005, the UPA Government got President APJ Abdul Kalam to tell the joint session of Parliament that it was discarding POTA, the only updated piece of legislation developed against terrorism</b>. Unstated though implicit was the objective to "appease" the minority community.<b> However, now that the IB chief has stressed on the need for a stronger law to deal with terrorism, the UPA's political chicanery stands thoroughly exposed. The weakness of the state under the existing legal framework against the modern scourge of terrorism has been discussed ad nauseam in Parliament</b>. Countless seminars and editorials have been held and written. However, the UPA Government remains oblivious and, in the process, culpably presides over the emasculation of the Indian state. The thrust given in the early 2000s to strengthen the national legal framework and equip it to check the mushroom growth of terrorism has been lost. POTA's repeal has thus left the security forces without the necessary legal back-up. Pseudo-secular rhetoric has repeatedly hijacked the discourse on national security for which the people of the country are unlikely to forgive the UPA Government.
<b>Viewed against Home Minister Shivraj Patil's estimation about marine jihadis preparing to attack India's nuclear power plants along the coast, Mr Narasimhan's courageous remarks are actually an expression of frustration felt by honest elements within the security establishment</b>. Not so long back, the National Security Adviser had himself gone public with similar statements. But the spectre of "political cost" looms large over the UPA. <b>Its Communist backers would willingly mortgage the lives of countless innocent people rather than fight the likes of Lashkar-e-Tayyeba. Since </b>1995, the year TADA was allowed to lapse, the stock response to accusations of diluting the national response to terrorism has been that "dialogue" with terror's patrons is preferable to confrontation. This is akin to fish seeking an understanding with fishermen. The Indian leadership would do well to study the international response to terror. Strong anti-terror laws may not be an insurance against jihadis of the fidayeen variety. Nonetheless, these would be an apt indication of a nation's resolve to bring terrorists to justice.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->