“...’t was mutter’d in hell” — Byron

Geography and history often become destiny. It was somewhat inevitable that India would become a prime target for global terror. Geographically, India stands proximate to the territory from which this terror is emanating. Historically, within this territory, India is the only nation that is a proud secular democracy, and not economically a basket case. Secularism, democracy and capitalism thrive in India, and these are the three principal targets of a terror driven by religious fundamentalism, contempt for democracy, and envy and hatred. It was a matter of time before India became a major target. Mumbai has just fortified the point with a tragic vehemence.

There is no turning back from here. The government of India, whatever be its political affiliations, has for a long time ignored the tocsin that has been rung for all to hear save those in power or aspiring to be in power. One political party, very vocal in its condemnation of terror that is Islamist in its orientation, continues through its own brand of religious fundamentalism and selected pogroms to create conditions in which Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism can breed in India. Another political party wants to preserve its secular credentials by not taking adequate action against terrorists and those organizations known for their links with terrorists. Both have their respective vote banks in mind. The price is paid by the helpless common Indian.

While the Indian political leadership remains mired in its petty concerns, the face of terrorism has undergone a radical transformation. All clues available from the attack on Mumbai point to a very close Pakistan link. But it would be simplistic to lay the entire responsibility at Pakistan’s door. The planning of the assaults on the various sites in Mumbai bear close resemblance to what happened at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad. There is a wider and a bigger organization at work, which cannot be pinned down to one particular nation. (This is not to deny the fact that Pakistan, through various agencies, has sponsored and promoted terrorist attacks on Indian targets.)

The most common name given to this organization is al Qaida. But it could have many names because it has many fronts. What are some of the distinguishing features of this organization and its mode of operation? It is mobile. It is not possible to pin it down to one place. If it were, it would have been easy to suppress and eradicate. (One spectacular illustration of this is that even the world’s mightiest power with all its resources has been unable to locate the Professor Moriarty of this terror network, Osama bin Laden.) Second, despite its atavistic ideology, this organization uses modern weapons and sophisticated technology. Third, the planning of the operations and the training of the operators are detailed and meticulous. So is the ideological brainwashing. The attacks on the World Trade Center, on the London underground and on Mumbai only serve as illustrations of the use of weapons, technology and training. Another remarkable feature is that the organization is global in its scope. Its targets are not confined to one part of the world. It is blatant and indiscriminate in its use of violence. Loss of lives and trails of destruction are taken as measures of the success of a given mission. In this sense, the terrorism that threatens the world today is qualitatively and quantitatively different from, say, the operations of the IRA.

The threat is thus global. If anything has made the world one place — and a smaller one — it is actually terrorism. The borders and boundaries of nation-states have begun to blur not because of the laws of the market, but because of globalized terror. A US citizen can no longer feel safe in Mumbai, just as an Indian is unsafe in any major Western city. Anyone can be a target anywhere. This is the unpredictability embedded in a terror mechanism that is mobile and global. The response to it and efforts to eradicate it must similarly be global. If fanatics drawn from various countries can be trained to kill and destroy across the world, why can’t efforts to quell such agents of terror and the destruction of the masterminds be a more co-operative enterprise? This should not be read as a special plea for India to share intelligence with the ISI whose chief may or may not be coming to New Delhi. Some amount of discretion has to be used. There is no guarantee that the ISI has any control over its operatives who work directly with outfits like the Lashker-e Toiba or that the government of Pakistan has any control over the ISI. There are countries which, like India, have come on the front-line as objects of attack by Islamist outfits hell-bent on indiscriminate killing to showcase themselves. There exist opportunities for greater co-operation with these countries.

Common sense suggests that any counter-insurgency measure has two aspects to it. One is the gathering of intelligence that helps pre-empt a terrorist strike; and the second consists of the actual steps taken to flush out terrorists once they have perpetrated the violence. It is clear that Indian forces are very good at the second job. What is equally glaring are the repeated failures on the first aspect. In fact, if intelligence gathering is efficient, and if that intelligence is acted upon, there would be no need to call out the army and the special task force. There is no explanation or accountability regarding the failures of the Indian intelligence agencies. One explanation being trotted out is that these agencies work too much to the dictates of their political masters. If this is true, then the integrity of these institutions created to protect the country is being eroded. The political class in India has a lot to answer for.

It is in the context of the need for greater co-operation to counter a global threat that India’s recent friendship with the United States of America acquires urgency. Critics of this friendship, because they view the world through ideological blinkers, see it in terms of India being too pro-US. It is no longer a question of ideology or being pro- or anti- this. It is a question of survival against a threat that is no longer distant, but here and now on Indian shores targeting Indian lives and buildings. It is time some people came off their high horse and saw the harsh reality.

Over the last few days, no Indian political leader — neither an impassive prime minister, nor L.K. Advani with clenched fist before a microphone nor that agent of violence from Gujarat — inspired confidence. This is a dangerous portent in a democracy. The subversion of democracy in India will be the ultimate triumph of global terror.

This is not a time when Indians can be happy, safe and proud.