Soft, Stricken

"Such attacks can be fatal for our image," says former foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh. He argues that when the Indian economy is on an upward trajectory, terror strikes at regular intervals can "create serious doubts in the minds of potential investors". Others, though, say such attacks are not specific to India, arguing that only a few can claim they aren’t in the crosshair of terrorists. Agrees a western diplomat, "Every country, especially a democracy, is either a victim or potential victim of terrorism today."

Yet many around the world will wonder: what is it about India that’s made it susceptible to terrorism? They will also watch how it deals with the fallout. Will it present a united front to terror? Diplomats say India’s biggest challenge now is to ensure its secular credentials are not tarnished, hoping the saffron brigade wouldn’t fish in troubled waters.

As a foreign ministry additional secretary says, "To say Hindutva terrorists are justified in their action while Islamist terrorists must be hanged will not only divide the country but also weaken our international fight against terrorism." Former Indian diplomat K.C. Singh says the lack of consensus among major political parties on counter-terrorism has hampered the security forces. "In a multi-faith country like India there must be a fine dividing line between effective counter-terrorism and fundamental rights, particularly of minorities," argues Singh. No wonder, the security bosses stumble around in confusion.

Woven into this tapestry of complexities is the strand called Pakistan. In his speech to the nation following the attack, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, "We will take up strongly with our neighbours (read Pakistan) that the use of their territory for launching attacks on us will not be tolerated...." India’s fight against international terrorism had been largely confined to garnering world opinion against Pakistan.But it now has more than a fig leaf to hide behind—the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the destruction of Islamabad’s Marriot Hotel and the spurt in terror incidents there have got the Pakistanis claiming they are as much victims of terrorism as Indians. Indeed, the advent of civilian governance in Islamabad seems to have diminished the fervour with which New Delhi used to mount pressure on then president Pervez Musharraf for taking action against the ISI and jehadi elements. Mansingh argues, "Pakistan is in transition and we need to give it the benefit of the doubt."

But Indian officials engaged in negotiations with Pakistan feel the problem runs deeper: while the civilian government acts as the ‘good boy’, the rogue elements in the ISI continue to deploy jehadis against India. At every Indo-Pak meeting, Indian officials insist Pakistan must implement what the Musharraf regime had agreed to—that it wouldn’t allow its soil for anti-India activities and would dismantle the apparatus of terror. MEA officials admit the civilian government is making a serious attempt to distance itself from those who wish to use terror as a foreign policy tool. "The terror apparatus remains intact, but it’s true that it isn’t being used as actively as before," said an MEA official.

Whether or not supported by the government, as long as the rogue ISI elements continue to foment terror in India, its people will continue to suffer.