The Hindu Business Line : Terrorism needs instant response

An unexpected situation such as the Mumbai terror attack calls for instant response. The local person, however lowly ranked, should have the authority to act, says P.V. INDIRESAN.

The Mumbai situation could have been tackled better, had the police been provided with meaningful weapons.

The terror attacks on Mumbai hotels and landmarks have led to universal condemnation of our politicians. A Cabinet minister at the Centre, a Chief Minister and his deputy have lost their jobs.

Another Chief Minister has been compelled to apologise for his intemperate remarks. A third Chief Minister had to leave the scene in ignominy. All this has happened within a few days of a Black being elected for the first time in the nation’s hi story as the President of the US. Why is this difference?

Barack Obama owes his election not to any great man of the party but to his own electioneering skills. The ministers who resigned in India were elected not because of their own skills but due to the patronage they enjoyed from their party bosses.

Once their bosses found their continuance unhelpful, they simply discarded them. There in lies the fundamental difference between Indian politicians and the American ones: American politicians are elected by the people, Indian ones are selected by their party bosses.

In the UK too, legislators are not selected by a Central Parliamentary Board but by the local constituency. India still follows the Communist ideology in selecting candidates. That is probably the reason why we have so many parties and they go on splitting into smaller and smaller fractions.

The anger that people have shown against politicians is unlikely to last long. Sooner or later, people will realise that they have no choice. They may get a Cabinet minister removed here or there but, ultimately, they have to live with the existing lot.

The power of Clause 49(0)

In our election system, there is a clause, Clause 49(0) by which an elector may sign in the register and insist that the polling officer record that he does not like any one of the candidates. For some reason, this feature has not been publicised as much as it should have been.

According to this rule, if the number of rejection slips exceeds the difference between the top two candidates, the election becomes void. Further, all the candidates that contested become ineligible to contest again.

Hence, here is indeed a powerful means for a minority of voters to show their dissent forcefully. I wish this feature is well publicised and the disfranchised middle-class is given a semblance of power.

The anger against politicians has been mainly directed at the tardy way they tackled the Mumbai situation and the way they have denied our police — and our military forces too — meaningful weapons. The Navy would not send its troop unless and until the Chief Secretary himself gave a written request. The NSG could not move because the NSA chief was in a marriage party.

Even after the NSA chief gave his orders, the NSG could not move because their earmarked aircraft was in Chandigarh whereas the NSG troops were near Delhi.

Even after it arrived, it took three hours to reach Mumbai — it was a slow propeller-driven one and not one of the modern jets. In all, it took six hours for NSG to reach Mumbai.

Systemic failures

Mumbai police had age-old 301 rifles whereas the terrorists had modern AK 47s.

It is to the credit of the Mumbai police that in spite of that handicap, they did manage to kill one terrorist and capture another. It is possible they could capture one only because they did not have proper weapons, but that is a speculation.

Thus, people have two grievances against the politicians — slow reaction to the situation and the neglect of the security system. The question is why our politicians behave the way they have done.

Evidently, they have done so because they consider it more profitable to keep police under check. The delay is less political and essentially bureaucratic; it is the system.

Whenever a rail disaster occurs, the local station master takes out the money in the cash box and does what he thinks is best to do. In many cases, the station master is a very low figure in the bureaucracy, barely above the level of a peon.

Yet, the system allows him to exercise authority to use State funds without taking anybody’s permission. In contrast, in the case of a terror attack, nobody (except the highest) has the power to call for troops, use funds and use available resources.

For instance, the head of the NSG could have commandeered one of the hundreds of aircraft that were available in Delhi. As he had no authority to do so, he had to await a 20-year-old aircraft to come all the way from Chandigarh.

The British knew that rail accidents will happen. They appreciated that immediate response saves lives. So, they authorised a very low functionary to take charge and do what he considered would be best, including taking away money from the ticket counter.

The same principle holds good for terrorism too. It is unexpected. It requires instant response. The local person, however, lowly he may be, should have the authority to act. We do not have such a system. The Prime Minister himself has to call the NSA chief and ask him to act.

We need to change the system. Nothing else will work. Unfortunately, our politicians have got accustomed to using the police for their own private use. NSG was meant to protect the people. Then, it was used to protect the Prime Minister. Now all sorts of politicians and their friends use the system not for security reasons, but, as a show of their power.

A politician’s tool

The Intelligence Bureau is supposed to protect the country. It is used more to spy on political opponents. The CBI was meant to tackle mainly economic offenders. Now, it has become a tool for the politicians in power to harass their opponents. In the States too, similar agencies have becomes tools of politicians.

Crores of rupees are extracted for key appointments. At the least, personal loyalty is the price that must be paid to get such postings. Politicians have found all those police authorities useful to be used for private gain, not for national welfare.

It has been proposed to have a central authority to check terrorism. What guarantee is there that such an authority too will not get politicised?

With even the Centre subject to fissiparous political tendencies, who will guarantee that this new mechanism will function only for the nation’s good and not for the private benefit of politicians in power? Alternatively, who will guarantee that it will not become an authority without check?

Here is a case where the principles of feedback control become useful. The station master can take the money from the ticket counter and use it as he likes but he is subject to inspection afterwards.

A few hundred British officers could rule over India with a population of over 300 million because they practised feedback control: they delegated authority but also inspected what had been done.

That is exactly what the NSG needs. It should have the authority to take over whatever assets the country has but be subject to detailed inspection afterwards: They have freedom but only so long as there is an emergency. It also means that politicians will be honest.

(To be continued)

(The author is former Director, IIT, Madras. blfeedback@thehindu.co.in)

(This is 240th in the Vision 2020 series. The previous article was published on November 24.)

More Stories on : Terrorism | Security | Vision 2020

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Lighter moments

Booster shots

Whither aviation security?

US auto makers prefer Congress to the Court

Stimulus for fiscal incentives

Obama’s style of leadership

Terrorism needs instant response

Cheaper credit

War on terror