The Bombay terrorist attacks have unleashed a "tsunami" of outrage against politicians. The media, especially the electronic visual ones, have led the way in inciting and riding a wave of popular anger against the perceived inability of politicians to assure security to citizens. I have several reservations about this simplistic and naive analysis of the massive challenge that national security is in the present times. It may be a classic example of barking down the wrong tree!
Any meaningful effort at addressing the national security issue has to go beyond the traditional prescriptions of newer security and intelligence institutions (revamped architecture), greater co-ordination among the intelligence agencies and regular police force, additional security personnel, better use of technology in intelligence gathering and policing etc. All these are important but not the most important of decisions to be made.
All the aforementioned can be done with some level of political commitment and making susbtantial investments, both of which may now be inevitable (given the scale of outrage and the electoral compulsion). However, there are limits to putting in place these traditional prescriptions, even with the best of efforts and political and bureaucratic commitment. Even in a US, shaken up by the 9/11 attacks, it has been well documented that co-ordination among intelligence agencies remains largely in paper. Turf wars among intelligence agencies is a common feature across the world. Further, the new Department of Homeland Security has been accused of being politicized and packed with cronies.
The challenge becomes even more immense in India with its huge population and geographical spread, and the massive and growing numbers of sources from which the dangers to national security arises. No amount of additional recruitments and investments in technology can remedy the reality that our first line of defence against public security remains de-motivated, unprofessional, stretched-out and corrupt. In many ways, the national security institutions and personnel will suffer from the same inevitable problems and handicaps (that of a developing civil society), that face the other institutions of the State in our country.
India has been accused of being a "soft state", where the Government, under pressure from its electoral compulsions, shy away from actions and legislations that are perceived to intrude into the liberties of the citizens in the name of security. This collective reluctance was prevalent in the American and European societies for a long time. The dramatic increase in Middle Eastern terrorism over the past two decades, climaxing in the 9/11 attacks, led to a realization that some amount of individual liberties will have to be sacrificed as a price for greater security. India stands at the same cross-roads today.
Are we ready for identity cards and citizen profiling that can help ensure effective monitoring of crime and criminals? Are we ready to be inconvenienced by periodic searches of our vehicles and even our properties? Are we ready to give up our privacy by letting big brother snoop on our telephone conversations, internet navigations, and even our bank accounts? Are we ready to pay the higer costs (by way of say, ticket prices) of enhanced security at our public strategic installations like airports and railway stations? Are we willing to amend our Criminal Procedure Code and other policing regulations and provide greater powers to the police while pursuing investigations? Are we willing to condone (or permit) occasions when the human rights of terrorists and extremists get violated - preventive detentions etc? Are all the different institutions of the State, including judiciary and media, willing to exercise the required self-restraint that is vital to the objective? Finally, is our civil society vibrant and cohesive enough to provide the demand side pressures that are necessary to sustain the implementation of such measures?
Most of these are prices which have to be paid by the same opinion makers and upper middle class who have now raised the banner of revolt against the political class. The recent history of our society and polity would suggest that these are troubling questions, which may not elicit affirmative answers. Interestingly, the poor are not likely to come in the way of such interventions as they are in any case being subjected to far more intrusive transgressions of their liberty by the various arms of the State.
No comments:
Post a Comment