• Investment World
• eWorld
• Brand Line
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest
• The New Manager

Stocks

• Quotes
• SE Diary
• Scoreboard
• Open-End Mutual Fund

Cross Currency

• Rates
  
  

Shipping

• Ports
  
  

Archives

• Yesterday
• Datewise
• Resources
• In Focus
• In Depth

Group Sites

• The Hindu
• Business Line
• Sportstar
• Frontline
• The Hindu eBooks
• The Hindu Images

The Union Home Secretary, Mr V. K. Duggal, must have surely perplexed concerned citizens within the country and put off the US Embassy officials in Delhi, and through them the US Government in Washington, by describing as "very innocuous" the latter's advisory on a possible "series of" imminent bombing attacks by "foreign terrorists" including those from the Al Qaeda "in and around New Delhi and Mumbai."

The warning was specific about the timeframe being between August 11 and 16 and "major airports, key Central Government offices, and major gathering places such as hotels and markets" being the likely targets.

It is hard to surmise whether Mr Duggal was being deliberately nonchalant or simply did not know the meaning of the word he used.

Here are some meanings of "innocuous," as per the dictionary: Harmless, inoffensive, insipid, inane, jejune, vapid, banal. If Mr Duggal really intended to convey any of the above meanings, the implication would be that the Government did not take the warning seriously and was not unduly perturbed. To put such a construction on his statement would be to show the Government in very poor light indeed.

More likely, not worrying too much about shades of meaning or subtleties of language, Mr Duggal used the word in the sense of the warning being well-meant or redundant, since the Government was already aware of the threat and taking all the necessary steps to counter it.

What causes lot more concern is his response to the possible presence in India of Al Qaeda terrorists, as implied in the US advisory.

Reports quote him as saying: "I have only seen the advisory. There is no intelligence input shared with us." On the other hand, a US Embassy official told the media that on such issues, the US worked "very closely" with India.

Who is correct? In any case, why should we wait for an input from the US on a grave danger which it is the duty of our own intelligence set-up to have detected by now and informed the Government?

B. S. RAGHAVAN

More Stories on : Terrorism | Foreign Relations | Offhand

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: ...">Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Terror in the air

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line