***
@ Ashutosh: Thats a great comment and a very insightful analysis – I will respond to it in more detail over the weekend – but yes, it is becoming increasingly obvious to me as well that we need a “new media” – a media that writes about things the way they are rather than as they appear to be.

***
@ Solomon: Good point – but of course public memory is notoriously short – and this too will be forgotten – or overshadowed by the next “big exclusive”.

For the West, these attacks show (once again !) that there is no ‘our terrorism’ and ‘theirs’. It suggests that the only real solution to this scourge is to see it as a universal affront against civilization, and join forces – firstly (and above all) in mindset, and then in action – to fight and destroy it.

I do not use the word ‘civilized’ societies, because that is divisive and unhelpful. Terrorists do not belong to society, any society. It is that simple.
[I always remember a famous statement by Lyndon Johnson - you either are inside the fence pissing out - or outside, pissing in].

But there is still some way to go before such a joining of forces in mindset and worldview (at least about Johnson’s fence).
When US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice arrived in Europe in December 2005 to explain the whats and whys of the then-white hot controversy about ‘rendition’ (cross-border transfer of terrorists), she said:

“Terrorists have planned the killings of thousands of innocents—in New York City or Nairobi, in Bali or London, in Madrid or Beslan, in Casablanca or Istanbul.“ Marked by their absence from her list were Indian cities like Srinagar or Jammu, New Delhi or Varanasi – all of which had seen similar outrages within the previous 12 months, but whose victims were Indians, not Westerners.

Neither did Secretary Rice make any reference to Ramankutty Maniyappan—the Indian technician found butchered in Afghanistan barely two weeks before her comments. Maniyappan was, after all, a key player in another facet of the West’s War Against Terror—one arguably as important as rendition – which everybody in liberal Europe appears to have forgotten about (while their counterparts in India never heard of).

And Afghanistan, one needs to be reminded, was exactly where India was forced to release Sheikh Ahmad Omar Saeed (a Pakistani terrorist captured in Kashmir by Indian forces) in exchange for the passengers of a hijacked Indian jet at the turn of the year 2000. The same Sheikh Ahmad then went on to slaughter Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl – a good illustration of the interface between ‘our’ terrorism and ‘theirs’.

Meanwhile, few really appreciate that India has been a longer victim of international terror, far worse affected, but still much less prone to use the coercive and controlling apparatus of the State than the West.

An Indian Army Major General once asked me: Why do the Indian armed forces – with one of the world’s largest helicopter fleets – never deploy them for counter-insurgency roles in Kashmir (incidentally, unlike what India’s helicopters have achieved in Sierra Leone, and have recently done in the Congo) ?

This is because such a visibly ‘hard’ response would be suicide for the Indian political establishment, its own peculiar self-image as a soft State, and the determination of numerous well-meaning but naïve (mainly Indian) NGOs and liberal journalists – both Western and Indian – to freeze it that way. How long, for instance, did our cutesy Indian media continue calling terrorists in Kashmir “militants” ?
Post 9-11, many liberal west European States did not hesitate a second before dramatically tightening their anti-terror laws, and turning a blind eye – or in several cases – even actively participating in the American rendition drama (as we know from the Marty report).

In contrast, India, responding to its NGOs and liberal media, went on in the wake of 9-11 to repeal its Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).

In Holland, we have to remember the casus belli was the death of just one film maker.

The Hyderabad outrage should be set in such a context, as should the West’s active support (beyond the usual sounds of condolence) for the only realistic Indian response.

This would be to bring back POTA.

India also needs to toughen up its act in Kashmir. It should permanently call off talks with Kashmiri and other separatists (and their sponsors in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) until there is an end to terror and an acceptance of the secular nature of the Indian State as the only framework for a solution. Here too, there are several imaginative possibilities for Western support – both in mindset and action.

But for the West to play us and them, and the entire Indian establishment to pussyfoot around the core issue is – to paraphrase Lyndon Johnson – to piss on our own faces.

Shantanu, above everything, as your citations illustrate – what is needed now in India is a new media (and I do not mean the Internet), more in tune with the times, and dare I say, worldly wise.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indias_terror_death_toll_second_to_Iraq/articleshow/2312796.cms

I do not understand why we still refuse to take stern action against terrorists. The polity is just a reflection of the mentality of the people. I wonder when the Hindu mind will realize the magnitude of the problem.

***

@ Dr Ambekar: With due respect, Shri Vajpayee was in power in Dec 2001 at the time of attack on Parliament and in spite of some strong words (“Aaar ya paar”) not much was done.

In my humble opinion, even the BJP is partly guilty of failing to tackle this issue.

***

@ Sanjeev: I will have a look at the link. I agree that there are no short-cut solutions here.

Dealing with terrorism requires strategy and clarity of purpose.

Sadly, our leaders appear to lack both.