UPA and Terror - Zero Tolerance or Zero Will?

TERRORIST ATTACKS :

A. Legal Response

B. Prevention and 

C. Convictions

The five year rule of the UPA Government has witnessed an unprecedented proliferation in terrorist activity. This alarming increase is by itself indicative of the fact that the Indian state under the UPA has become a soft target for devastating attacks by terrorists both foreign and of the home grown variety. Not unpredictably, the UPA Government has been on the backfoot on the issue of terrorism throughout its five year reign.

In the face of a barrage of criticism in Parliament and the press, the stock response of Congress spokespersons in particular, has been to point fingers at the previous NDA regime in an attempt to demonstrate that the predecessor Government’s record on terror is no better than that of the present regime. In particular, the Congress defense has three planks at its core :

A. that the NDA regime witnessed three major terrorist activities on Indian soil in the Kandahar hijacking in December, 1999; the attack on Parliament in December, 2001 and the attack on Akshardham Temple Complex in Gujarat in September, 2002;

B. That draconian laws did not deter terrorist activities as is evident from the fact that the Akshardham attack took place within a few months of the promulgation of POTA; and

C. That the NDA’s response to these attacks and the Kandahar hijacking was pusillanimous in the extreme and that the UPA would have dealt with the situation with a far greater degree of efficacy.

PREVENTION : On the issue of frequency of terrorist attacks, there is virtually no contest in so far as the record of the two regimes are concerned. While the NDA era witnessed three major terrorist attacks, the following is the list of the major strikes that have become so conspicuous a feature of the UPA Government’s tenure:-

New Delhi , Oct 29, 2005 : 61 persons killed in three blasts on the eve of Diwali

Varanasi, March 7, 2006: 21 people killed and over 101 injured in two blasts that rocked Varanasi, the first at Sankat Mochan Temple and the second at Varanasi Railway station.

Mumbai, July 11, 2006: 7 explosions ripped through crowded suburban trains in Mumbai killing 209 persons and leaving 700 more bloodied and injured.

Malegaon, Maharashtra, Sep 8, 2006: 40 people killed in two blasts and about 200 injured in 4 explosions in the Hamidia Mosque and chowks.

Samjhauta Express, Feb 19, 2007: 66 people killed after two firebombs went off on the India-Pakistan friendship train, the Samjautha Express, at Panipat, North Delhi.

Hyderabad, Aug 25, 2007: 42 people killed in two blasts, at a popular eatery and a public park.

Jaipur, May 13, 2008: 68 people killed in serial bombings.

Bangalore, July 25, 2008: One person killed in a low-intensity bomb explosion.

Ahmedabad, July 26, 2008: 57 people killed after 20-odd synchronised bombs went off within less than two hours.

New Delhi, Sep 13, 2008: 26 people killed in six blasts across the

New Delhi, Sep 27, 2008: Three people killed after a crude bomb was thrown in a busy market in Mehrauli.

Malegaon, Maharashtra, Sep 29, 2008: 6 persons killed and about 101 injured after a bomb planted on a motorcycle exploded.

Modasa, Gujarat, Sep 29 2008: One killed and several injured after a low-intensity bomb kept on a motorcycle went off near a mosque.

Kanpur, Oct 14, 2008: 8 people injured after bomb planted on a rented bicycle went off Colonelganj market.

Imphal, Oct 21, 2008: 17 killed in a powerful blast near Manipur Police Commando complex.

Assam, Oct 30, 2008: At least 45 killed (figure can change) and over 100 injured in 18 terror bombings across Assam.

Mumbai, Nov 26, 2008: 180 killed and many more injured in seven terror attacks targeting mostly foreigners' in the Taj Mahal Hotel, the Oberoi Trident Hotel, Leopold Cafe, CST, Chabad House and in random firing elsewhere by ten individuals armed with weapons, ammunition and grenades.

LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE : On the issue of strong laws to deal with the detection and prevention of terrorist activity and the trial and punishment of terrorists, the Congress stand discloses an unconscionable mix of both double standards and vote bank politics . Confronted with Sikh terrorism in Punjab and the assassination of its own Prime Minister by her Sikh body guards-both outcomes of Congress’s dangerously misconceived policies in Punjab-the Congress’s visceral reaction was the enactment of TADA, first by ordinance in 1985 and then by legislation in 1987. The Congress party’s civil libertarian pretensions found no public expression as TADA remained in force for well nigh 10 years. Meanwhile, convictions under the act were rare and when they did take place the ordinary law would have been adequate. On the other hand, thousands of innocent Sikh youth suffered the rigors of the statute through unwarranted arrests, illegal and protracted incarceration and custodial violence. Through all this, there was no whimper of protest from any Congress quarter.

In fact, Congressmen first discovered their revulsion for draconian laws in the wake of the Bombay serial blasts in 1993 as a consequence of which large number of Muslims, particularly from Mumbai, were arrested and sought to be tried under the TADA.

Congress M.Ps like Sunil Dutt commenced an indefatigable campaign for the repeal of TADA. On the eve of the 1995 parliamentary elections, Narsimha Rao’s Government allowed TADA to lapse.

In the wake of the Kandahar hijacking, and particularly the attack on Parliament in December, 2001, the NDA Government in 2002 enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). While it is true that a few months later in September, 2002 there was a terrorist attack by Lakshar-e-Toiba militants at the Akshardam Temple in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, this was the only terrorist incident for the rest of the NDA regime after the enactment of POTA. The failure to check the Akshardam attack in spite of POTA is explained by the fact that the Akshardham conspiracy was well under way by the time the police could invoke the extraordinary powers that POTA gave them for the early detection of terrorist crimes through wire tapping and the interception of letters, e-mails, etc.

Ominously the only exception to the otherwise terrorism free reign of the NDA Government’s post POTA was the city of Mumbai in Maharashtra where the Congress-NCP Government was in power. Between Dec. 2002 to August, 2003, Mumbai was convulsed by as many as six terrorist bombing episodes in a span of eight months that left several persons dead and many more seriously injured. .

From December 2002 to August 2003, as the following terrorist incidents occurred:-

Dec. 2 2002: Two persons were killed and 31 injured in a powerful explosion in a bus outside the crowded Ghatkopar railway station in Mumbai. The Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) was suspected to be behind the blasts.

Dec. 6, 2002: Twenty five people were injured in a bomb blast by members of the SIMI at McDonalds fast food restaurant at Mumbai Central railway station. The bomb was planted in the air conditioner duct. It was suspected to be a crude bomb.

Jan 27, 2003: Thirty persons were injured when a bomb planted on a bicycle went off throwing splinters of sharp nails outside Vile Parle railway station in Mumbai. Members of SIMI were found to be behind the attack.

March 13, 2003 : A powerful bomb blast shattered a bogie of a local train at Mulund railway station in Mumbai during peak hours killing 11 people and injuring more than 65 .

July 28 , 2003 : Bus blast kills 3 and injures 31 others in Mumbai. Pakistani intelligence agency : ISI and members of SIMI were found to be behind the blast.

August 23, 2003: Two bombings at the Gateway of India and the Mumbadevi temple in Mumbai killed 52, injured 167. Terrorists from Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Students Islamic Movement of India were found to be behind the attacks.

In sharp contrast to its response to terrorism in Punjab, the Congress vehemently opposed the enactment of POTA and made its repeal a part of their manifesto and campaign during the elections that ensued in 2004. Immediately on its assumption of power as a part of the UPA, the Congress introduced legislation for the repeal of POTA, although it retained some of its provisions through an amendment of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention), 1967.

Since that repeal, terrorism has been in spate through the length and breath of India. The UPA, however, remained undeterred about its stand on strong terrorist laws. It was only the stark horror and humiliation of 26/11/2008 that forced the UPA to grudgingly accept the utter folly of its previous ways. On 17.12.2008 the Home Minister, Mr. P.C. Chidambaram, introduced two bills to effectively deal with terror which subsequently became law. The first, an amendment to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, substantially reintroduced all the earlier repealed stringent provisions of POTA. After five bitter years of struggling with terrorism, the UPA Government effectively bowed to the NDA’s legislative wisdom on terror.

CONVICTIONS : Congress’s attempts to defend its own abject record on terrorism by pointing to the earlier NDA’s Government record is both specious and misconceived. Its most stringent criticism of the previous regime centers around the Kandahar hijacking episode. According to the Congress, the NDA’s response was effete; the Congress would have effected the policy of Zero Tolerance and never allowed the hostage exchange of Masood Azhar for the passengers. This stand of the Congress constitutes an astounding volte face : contemporary newspaper reports of December, 1999 indicate that an all party meeting was held to discuss the Kandahar hostage crisis. At the said meeting there was unanimity amongst all parties that the Government of the day should handle the crisis in a manner that ensured the safety of all the passengers aboard IC 184. In fact it was categorically resolved that the safe return of the passengers to Indian shores should be the prime objective of the Government. The Congress delegation at the all party meeting, which endorsed this action, was led by Manmohan Singh. Neither Sonia nor Rahul Gandhi nor any other functionary of the Congress party opposed this line of action. Indeed contemporary newspaper reports disclose that both Sonia and Rahul were conspicuously silent on the issue. In stark contrast, the statements issueed by both in more recent times are critical of the approach of that Government.

More significantly, Masood Azhar whose release from captivity was at the centre of the hijackers demand, had been in custody since 1994 when he was arrested in Kashmir for terrorist activities. For five years the Congress Government and the subsequent Government which depended on Congress support for its survival, failed to secure Masood Azhar’s conviction on any charges in any court of law. Instead of trying and executing him for sedition, two successive Governments allowed him to languish in captivity, thus almost facilitating the audacious attempt for securing his release in a hostage exchange. The hijacking of IC 184 in December, 1999 was essentially motivated by the objective of securing Masood Azhar’s release. Those who did not secure his conviction and execution for five years were largely to blame for the Kandahar hijacking and its consequences as also for the several terrorists crimes attributed to him since 1999, including the attack on Parliament in December, 2001. Congress spokesmen have conveniently concealed these material facts.

As regards the 2001 attack on Parliament, the record of the NDA Government is exemplary to say the least. The attack on Parliament was thwarted - albeit by the sacrifice of the lives of a few brave security personnel. While the five terrorists who tried to gain entry into Parliament were killed, the masterminds behind the plot were traced and arrested. The trial of these persons was completed within a year. The Appeals of the convicted persons as well as those of the state against those acquitted - both before the High Court and the Supreme Court were finally disposed off by 4.8.2005.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal filed by Mohamed Afzal Guru and confirmed the death sentence imposed upon him. For almost four years this sentence has not been carried out as a mercy petition filed by Mohamed Afzal Guru is pending disposal by the President of India. The exemplary method of dealing with terrorists demonstrated by the NDA Government, thus stands completely vitiated by delays attributable solely to the UPA Government.

The indecision of the Government is in stark contrast to the speed and alacrity on its part in hanging Kehar Singh one of the alleged conspirators in the assassination of Indira Gandhi.

The culprits in the Akshardham Temple complex attack have also been apprehended, tried and convicted; only their appeals are pending.

On the other hand, there is a marked reluctance on the part of the Congress/UPA Governments to detect and punish the perpetrators of terrorist crimes. It took 14 years for a Special TADA Court dealing exclusively with 1993 serial bomb blast case to convict the guilty. The judgment in that case was delivered only in 2007. Almost all those found guilty have filed appeals and doubtless, a few more years will elapse before they get their just desserts.

In the six blast explosions that shook various parts of Bombay between December 2002 and August 2003, the accused in one case have all been acquitted (though an appeal against their acquittal is pending in the High Court). In the case of three other explosions, the trial is still to commence and in the remaining two, although the trial has begun, they are some way from completion. In all these cases, the accused persons are members of SIMI, the Lashkar-e-Toiba and Pakistani Nationals. In short six years after these blasts, no one has been convicted by a court of law.

Finally, as regards the epidemic of terrorists attacks that have been the hallmark of the last five years of the UPA Government, in some cases the perpetrators have not even been apprehended. Where there have been arrests, the trials have not yet commenced. Even the case of Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani terrorist caught red handed with volumes of evidence disclosing his role in the several terrorist acts perpetrated by him on 26.11.2008, the charge sheet filed by the Crime Branch consisting of 2000 witnesses and several documents, threatens to undermine a speedy and efficacious trial. A trial that at most should take a couple of months, seems inexorably destined for needless protraction.

While a plethora of Congress spokesmen belligerently proclaim their commitment to Zero Toleration for terrorism on the several platforms afforded to them to air their views, the empirical evidence discloses that Congress deeds do not match their words. The truth is that Congress electoral compulsions have rendered the Congress inefficacious in the fight against terrorism. In fact, Congress has no stomach to fight the new 21st Century manifestation of terrorism that threatens the Indian subcontinent : Jehadi Terrorism .

Congress Secularism and Terrorist Dogma

Conceding the ideological turf

An earlier article on this blog had sought to establish by empirical data  that  the Congress party and its secular allies were soft on terrorism of the jehadi variety . Their record in apprehending and punishing such terrorists when in power is woefully miserable. What bodes grave ill for the integrity of the Indian State however  is the base rationale and motivation  for  the seeming reluctance to confront this sovereignty-debilitating problem with the steely resolve that it demands. That rationale has two facets: a Machiavellian motive to be a permanent contender for power at all costs by nurturing and indulging a Muslim vote bank coupled with a dangerous—even if correct –assumption that the community would take grave offence to the extent of withdrawing its electoral support to even its most ardent political benefactors if any of its members were punished for perpetrating terrorist acts. This second facet leads to an irresistible inference that secular parties are soft on terrorism on account of their belief  that there is sympathy among a majority of  Muslims for jehadi terrorism. Even if ,however,this eminently disputable premise were true that secular parties should only too readily accept it is both shameful and depressing. It at once indicates that our secular parties have neither stomach nor inclination to wage and win  a war of ideas against those who propagate jehadi violence and simultaneously discloses that our secular politicians would sacrifice long-term national interest for immediate power or that alternatively for love or money are themselves seduced by the jehadis.

Consider  Congress’s feeble handling of Dawood Ibrahim, ever since he was first identified as being one of the masterminds of the 1993 blasts that ripped through Mumbai.Its governments have never sought either his extradition from Pakistan where he undeniably resides in splendid luxury and enjoys state protection nor of any of his co-conspirators who dispersed not only to Pakistan but to other parts of the world.

In October 1993  the Vohra Committee which was established in the wake of the March 1993 blasts in Mumbai published its report on the political/bureaucratic-mafia nexus in the country .That report ,on the basis of evidence and confidential material placed before it came to the unambiguous conclusion that there existed an alarming political-mafia nexus in several states in the country and that there was a dire need for the creation of a nodal agency of various intelligence gathering outfits in the country to weed out this unholy nexus. While the findings of the committee were made public the materials and evidence disclosing the names of  those with criminal links were withheld. What however is in the public domain is statements of witnesses recorded in the 1993 blasts investigation. These disclose that Dawood Ibrahim enjoyed close links with several prominent politicians particularly from Maharashtra at least one of whom even today occupies ministerial office. Congress reluctance to implement the recommendations is accordingly not surprising in the least.

Sometime after the chargesheet in the 1993 terrorist attack case was filed Dawood offered to surrender to the investigating authorities in India on certain terms. The two chief of these was that he be tried only for the 1993 case and that he be placed under house arrest as opposed to being held in custody in jail for security reasons. This audacious offer by an absconding accused in a trial with substantial evidence against him was clearly a bluff made in the confident belief that the Indian  authorities would not bite his bait. Again, not surprisingly, the Congress government then in power rejected his offer on the specious ground that they could not accord him preferential treatment. The immense advantage in securing  the prime conspirator’s presence in India, the information that could have been obtained from him particularly as regards Pakistan’s role in that heinous attack on India’s sovereignty, his conviction and sentence in that case and the consequent elimination of his potential for similar attacks in future were all strangely lost on the then administration. Dawood’s bluff was never called;his interrogation could expose  his many allies in India. Significantly a few years later the NDA government after relentlessly pursuing Abu Salem in Portugal secured his extradition to India from that country on 2 conditions: 

that he be investigated and tried only in respect of the 1993 case and that in the event of his conviction the death sentence be not imposed upon him since Portugal did not recognize that sentence. The Congress,then in opposition did not raise the faintest protest on the ground of  preferential treatment.

The NDA government in sharp contrast pursued the extradition of Dawood Ibrahim from Pakistan with missionary zeal.The then Home Minister Mr LKAdvani in particular made the extradition of Dawood by Pakistan  almost a precondition for the improvement of Indo-Pak relations at the Agra summit of 2001, an insistence which irked Musharraf in the extreme and led him to blame Mr Advani by insinuation for the breakdown of talks. Undeterred, Mr Advani pressed the issue with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell during his visit to the U.S. in January 2002.His efforts were finally rewarded in October 2003 when  the United States designated Dawood Ibrahim as a global terrorist having links with Al QAEDA and financing activities of LeT and other terrorist organisations.

So why then is the Congress so meek and indeed almost indulgent in its attitude towards Dawood  and his known acolytes like Sunjay Dutt? The answer is not far to seek. The party believes that the poor,uneducated Muslim who constitutes a significant majority of that community largely because years of Congress rule has consigned him to that condition privately regard Dawood and his ilk as icons of justice where the Indian state has failed them in their hour of need. Rather than disabuse adherents of this presumed view within the community by deterring terrorists through their capture and conviction the Congress prefers to let the law meander aimlessly forever so that its inaction earns it the electoral harvest of a grateful community’s votes. Meanwhile, the nation burns as the undeterred merchants of terror unleash their next vicious attack.

That Congress has capitulated abjectly to fundamentalist and extremist ideologues in the Muslim community is most clearly established by its passionate support for SIMI.  The party and its spin doctors in the media have actually given this demonstrably pernicious outfit  a clean bill of health in the face of both the organisation’s unabashed adherence to and espousal of  jehadi violence for the purpose of subversion of the Indian State  and its well established involvement in several terrorist attacks across India.

The Student’s Islamic Movement of India (Simi)  is a fundamentalist organisation of Muslim youth founded in Aligarh in 1977. Its aim is “the liberation of India” by converting it to an Islamic state. Simi has declared jehad against India the aim of which is to establish Dar-ul-Islam by forcefully converting all Indians to Islam or by extermination. Simi is opposed to democracy, nationalism and secularism and thus to the Constitution of India. For Simi, Osama bin laden is an Islamic hero and not a terrorist. Further, Simi does not regard Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India.                 

     

As if its credo was not seditious enough for any mainstream political party to at least maintain a healthy distance from the organisation if not roundly condemn it, the Congress party and its secular allies have staunchly championed its cause. Worse, their support of Simi has been in the face of overwhelming evidence of the organisation’s active participation in terrorist activities.

On the 26th of March 2002 at a specially convened Parliamentary session to enact POTA, Sonia Gandhi shockingly opposed the Act on the ground that it was being introduced only to target Simi which was not a terrorist organisation. This in spite of the fact that the Home ministry on the basis of Intelligence Bureau reports had justified the ban on the ground that the outfit had strong links with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the LeT. She was supported amongst others by Prakash Jaiswal  whom the UPA appointed as Minister of State for Home on its assumption of the reins of power in 2004.

Since then the role  of Simi in  the perpetration of terrorist activities through the length and breadth of India is well-documented history. The Institute of Conflict Management headed by KPS Gill has catalogued over 100 incidents from the year 2000 to July 2008 that characterized Simi as a terror outfit.

Even so, when Simi challenged the latest ban on it imposed by the UPA regime in February 2008, the Home Ministry  manned by Shivraj Patil and Prakash Jaiswal wilfully or otherwise presented its case so abysmally that the Delhi High Court was compelled to quash the ban on Simi on the ground that the government had not furnished any evidence to indicate that Simi was involved in any terrorist activities since the previous ban. It was only the vociferous criticism of the opposition and particularly the anger and protests of the police forces in various states including  Congress –run states(the State of Maharashtra for example was at pains to point out that Simi was responsible for two major terrorist acts since the earlier ban—the train blast of 11th July2006 and the Malegaon explosions in September the same year) that the UPA government appealed to the Supreme Court which promptly restored the ban. 

The purpose of this treatise is not to flay Congress’s avowed secular credentials. In a polity as diverse as India the road to power for a political party   necessarily consists  in championing sectional interests while feigning to be “truly national “ in order to maximize its electoral appeal. The real danger is when a political party in fact begins to accept its propaganda as gospel. Once before in 1975 the Congress seduced by its own propaganda that it alone could guarantee stability subverted this country’s  democracy and declared an unconstitutional Emergency. Today its only badge of pride is the appropriation to itself of the coveted title of all those who seek the Muslim vote bank: keeper of the secular ideal. On available  evidence  the Congress seems to believe  that the title behoves it to encourage separatist ideas, jehadi doctrines and an Islamic theocracy in India. This election is the time to put a mirror before Congress eyes, disabuse the party of its dangerous misconceptions about secularism and relieve it from the responsibity of office before it cedes India to a barbaric culture as effete rulers have so often done in the past.