Coutesy: Gourav Ray (ISB Co2009)
The Mumbai terror killings of 26/11 have provoked anger at the helplessness of the Indian state, and disgust with governance and politicians. 26/11 has not revealed any facts we did not know earlier. The scenario remains unchanged: political corruption, with 22 percent Members of Parliament having a criminal record; the complicity of bureaucrats; no accountability at any level: little or no sharing of information by intelligence agencies, unpreparedness during the Kargil intrusion; and delayed responses of the NSG (it happened at the time of the Kandahar hijacking). So what is new?
India has been afflicted by terrorism for over six decades, but this is the first time that the psyche of the rich and middle class have been brutally assaulted. More people died at the Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus, but the incident received far less TV coverage than operations at the Taj, Trident, and ‘Nariman House.’ What happened to our anger and consciousness during all these years? Why didn’t we speak up earlier? Why this class bias towards national security?
26/11 has demonstrated a systemic failure in dealing with terrorism. Despite India’s track-record of sixty-one years in dealing with insurgency, more than any other country in the world, the results so far have been dismal. Over 40,000 civilians, terrorists and security personnel have been killed in Jammu and Kashmir; 32 percent districts of India are under Naxal influence, and insurgency in the North East continues unabated. After Iraq, the largest numbers of terrorist deaths are in India. The guilty of the Mumbai blasts of 1993 are still being prosecuted fifteen years after the tragedy. Can the judiciary, an institution of state, and the law enforcement and investigative agencies, be given a clean chit? Is it fair to single out politicians for recurring failures? Shouldn’t we be questioning our conscience and institutions harder?
Thus far, history teaches us that we do not learn from history.
In my presentation, I shall suggest what India’s responses to terrorism should be. Before I do so, I wish to underscore two strategic realities that politicians, diplomats, soldiers and intelligentsia have overlooked. These realities are conceptual and provide the scaffolding for India’s response to terrorism in the future. There are no quick solutions and we are in for a long haul.
First, war is not a solution or even an option. India and Pakistan have been to war over Kashmir and insurgency has erupted four times and there has been no resolution. Since 1989 a proxy war is raging in the Kashmir Valley and there is no end in sight. The world’s sole superpower has everything that India has on its wish list: homeland security, highly coordinated intelligence services, a national doctrine to combat terrorism, well-equipped armed forces, and domestic anti-terrorism laws that undermine individual liberty. Despite all this, the US is losing its war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are other reasons too. War will deepen the present global economic crisis. According to the Nobel Laureate, Stiglitz, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing about 3 trillion dollars to the US exchequer, that is nearly three times the GDP of India. Pakistan is a nuclear nation and war between two nuclear powers is unthinkable. Moreover, there is near symmetry between the land forces of the two countries. So, what is the guarantee we will win? I do not think that the Americans would allow a war simply because that would undermine America’s war against Taliban in Afghanistan. Terrorists want war as that would force Pakistani forces to switch to the Indian border, thus allowing the Taliban to occupy the northern part of Pakistan which is already under pressure. Strategically, this would de-stabilize Pakistan, and a de-stabilized Pakistan will be a greater threat to India than it already is.
The second reality is that terrorists are not fanatics or sociopaths. They are as normal as everyone else. Within all of us there is a thin permeable line between good and evil. Under a certain set of circumstances, each one of us is capable of committing unspeakable crimes against our friends and neighbor. That makes our task of identifying potential terrorists impossible and our responses uncertain. If terrorists were fanatics or abnormal persons, our job of eliminating them would have been easy. Terrorists have a world view which they believe is the only view. They are convinced of the righteousness of their cause, and will go to any length to achieve it. When India TV asked one of the terrorists in the Trident, why they were killing innocent persons, he replied, “We are dying every day.”
Whilst serving as a brigadier in the Kashmir Valley from 1993 to 1995, I was in charge of military and intelligence operations. We had about 300 terrorists in custody – terrorists of all hues – young, old, mercenaries, jehadis, and the home-grown variety. I had civil and military psychiatrists to examine them to answer one question — were they fanatics? The answer at the end of the tests was a clear “No.” My findings speak for themselves. See Figure 1 below:
| | Traits of a Fanatic | Present % | Absent % | Ambivalent |
| 1. | Focused view on life | 25 | 60 | 15 |
| 2. | Insensitivity | 15 | 75 | 10 |
| 3. | Personalized view of the world | 10 | 90 | - |
| 4. | Loss of critical judgment | 10 | 90 | - |
| 5. | Inconsistency | 05 | 80 | 15 |
| 6. | Certainty | 20 | 80 | - |
| 7. | Over simplification | 10 | 90 | - |
| 8. | Resistance to change | 25 | 75 | - |
Figure 1: Traits of Fanaticism in Terrorists
It may interest you to know that, before bringing Eichmann to trial he was examined by six of Israel’s best psychologists and psychiatrists. They declared he was “more normal than the average person.”
Extensive scientific research and social experiments have been conducted notably by Stanley Milgram (Obedience to Authority) and Phillip Zimbardo (The Lucifer Effect). Zimbardo conducted the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment or SPE in 1973. Normal and healthy students from Stanford University were invited as volunteers to participate in a mock experiment. One group became prison guards whilst the other elected to be prisoners. Within the first five days the experiment had to be called off because the ‘prison guards’ started behaving sadistically and torturing the prison inmates. We may conclude that there is a “banality about evil,” namely; evil is done not by sociopaths and fanatics but rather by ordinary people. The power of the situation, blind obedience and moral disengagement seem to exert greater power over human behaviour than any other factors. The conduct of prison guards in concentration camps, and American male and female soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib, are well documented examples. There are many more.
There are two strategic challenges we must surmount in dealing with terrorism. If they are not adequately addressed, no amount of physical security and legislation can resolve terrorism. These challenges have generally been missed out in most national debates in TV and print media. I wish to place them before you.
The first challenge is the “clash of civilizations” theory that has radicalized Islam and given average Muslims a feeling of being victimized and under threat. Notions of a decadent West and an assimilative India have further added to their suspicions and fears.
Consequently, counter-terrorism is more a state of mind and less a state of activity. The mind is psychological, political, cultural and historical. Activity is about killing. The underlying causes of terrorism are rooted in our society, and we cannot be seem to be at war with our own people. Killing is, therefore, not a solution as it invariably leads to deeper alienation through brutalization and violation of human rights.
The answer lies in isolating terrorists and hard liners by denying them the oxygen they need to survive. The people are the oxygen. If we want to seriously defeat Islamic militancy, we have to win over 150 million Muslims in the country. Till that happens, terrorism will thrive.
The second challenge lies in how to involve citizens in fighting terrorism. Government and security forces alone cannot defeat terrorists because terrorism is not a law and order or military problem. Citizens are part of the System. If citizens fail, the System fails. An apathetic citizenry will only exacerbate the situation. We must ask ourselves the question: what can I as a citizen of this country do to stop this mindless violence?
The larger issue before society is the widespread alienation of minorities. When a section of society perceives that they have been wronged, or the government is weak and takes sides, mass alienation and ghettoization occurs. Muslims feel insecure and deprived at all levels and are incensed by the Muslim stereotype — they are pro-Pakistani, unpatriotic and sympathetic to terrorism. Muslim human development indicators are well below the national average, and it is not surprising that many perceive that they are second-class citizens. In such circumstances, people believe in what Albert Camus said: “It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.” The grand design to defeat Islamic militancy can succeed, provided terrorists and their fundamental ideologies are isolated, and Muslim communities join the mainstream.
For right and wrong reasons the Muslim community today is alienated, with trust having broken down between them and the others. Unless trust is restored by improving their human development indices, empowering women, providing job opportunities, and overcoming each other’s prejudices, alienation will continue. De-alienation is overdue.
History tells us that the rise and fall of great civilizations has not been only because of military and economic over-reach, but mainly because of the quality of education existing in a culture. The challenge to education in Islam has been that many Muslims believe that what is not contained in the Received Book is not worth knowing. Thus, the backwardness of Muslims in India is largely due to lack of education. Providing easy access to quality education and technology in schools is imperative. The modernization of 10,000 Urdu schools is overdue. Against an All India pass percentage of 23 percent, the pass percentage in Andhra Pradesh, for example, is zero percent! Moreover, there are about 30,000 madrassas where children are learning Urdu and Islam. You are well aware of the imbalanced curriculum content in these schools.
Religion and culture are an intrinsic part of one’s identity. So why cannot Muslim children be permitted to study Islam and Urdu in secular schools, thereby providing Muslims their identity – Islam and Urdu? I do not see any contradiction in religion and secularism. In fact, localism is a precondition for globalism. You cannot become a world citizen at the cost of losing your cultural identity, and religion lies at the heart of a nation’s culture.
The most effective way to fight Islamic radicalism is by empowering Islamic women. Women by nature abhor violence and conflict of all kinds, from domestic to war. Ultimately, they are the victims. Women who are literate and believe in peace will rear their children to think likewise, and persuade their children to shun the path of violence. I attribute the success of Operation Sadbhavna or Goodwill, in Ladakh, significantly to the support I received from Muslim women.
Today’s statistics are worrying. Against a national women’s work participation rate of 25.6 percent, Muslim women are at 14.1 percent. Their female literacy is as low as 49.9 percent. Special emphasis has to be laid in programmes providing micro-credit facilities to women (as in Bangladesh), employment opportunities, and health care.
The vast majority of Muslims are self-employed with few facilities for vocational skills and access to credits. There is evidence that public and private banks are discriminatory against Muslims. The average amount of loans disbursed to Muslims is two-thirds of the amount given to other minorities. According to the Sachar Committee, “Some banks use the practice of identifying ‘negative geographical zones’ on the basis of certain criteria where bank credit, and other facilities are not easily provided.” While they constitute 15 percent of the population, the number of Muslims in government jobs is as low as 3 to 6 percent. While job opportunities are again closely linked to education, there is a need for liberal policies to provide credit.
I have always maintained that in life it is not what you believe is right or wrong; rather, it is how others perceive it. Muslims do have several grievances – some real, some imaginary. There are historical wrongs that should be addressed through dialogue and remedial actions; even atonement if necessary. And the initiative must come from the majority, the elder brother in the community. At the same time, we must make it clear that, in a democracy like India, grievances must be settled through dialogue and ballot-boxes.
Second, the principal flaw seems to lie in the Indian education system, that has not changed for the past 150 years – top-down assimilation, rote-memorization, the tyranny of examinations, obsession on scoring 100 out of 100, with over-emphasis on educating the head (reason), and not the heart (emotions). To me, whole-education is the golden key. Whole-education should broaden our mind and set it free, enabling us to understand the others’ point of view, and to live together peacefully despite our diverse views.
Educating the head only has other serious drawbacks: the inability to walk the middle-path; the George Bush philosophy (and many Indians think like that) that killing terrorists is the only answer; and the inability to live together with diversity. I am of the firm belief that educating the head may produce brilliant scientists, but who are likely to use their brilliance for evil purposes. I wish to remind you that all extreme ideologies in the 20th century — Marxism, National Socialism, Fascism, revolutions, and religious fundamentalism, were produced by great philosophers and thinkers.
About 50 percent of the members of the Nazi Party comprised German intellectuals. They belonged to a nation that produced some of the world’s best philosophers, best scientists, best musicians, best doctors and best engineers. They were also responsible for exterminating six and a half million of their countrymen. Pol Pot was educated in Paris and he went home and eliminated one and a half million Cambodians simply because they were educated. What happened to reason?
Let us look at the CVs of the terrorist leaders today. From Osama bin Laden and his deputy Dr Al Zahawari, to the attackers of the World Trade Towers, to Taliban, to Lashkar-e-Toiba, to Jaish-e-Mohammad, to SIMI; they are all highly educated individuals. Look at Hindu right-wing fundamentalist leaders. They are post-graduates. What happened to reason – reason that was extreme and one-sided? My contention is that they received the wrong kind of education, an education that focused only on reason. The curriculum of our schools and colleges, therefore, needs immediate revision, to focus on whole-education (though not at the expense of academic performance). You may well say that I am completing my college education so what relevance does whole-education have for me?
I wish to remind you that the single greatest competency in the Knowledge Age is lifelong learning. This competency is enabled by the increasing obsolescence of knowledge, neuroplasticity of the human brain, and the scientific fact that we are products of our synaptic connections. Whole-education through lifelong learning can start at any age. We, the older lot, possibly need it more than our children. The time has already come for us to become our own teachers. Our personal learning plan should include:
Leadership studies
Meta-cognition
Sciences with contemporary liberal arts
Participation in outreach community programmes
Whole-education ensures:
a. We grow up as world citizens with a broad view of life.
b. There is balanced development of one’s cognitive, emotional and spiritual personality, with greater possibilities of growing up to be just and humane.
c. That good persons are not bystanders and stand accused of remaining silent and doing nothing about wrongs in society.
d. Citizens who respect authority but have the courage to oppose unjust systems, who hold themselves accountable for their actions, who will not allow the system to de-individuate their personal identity, and who will be equipped with the skills and sensitivities to live with diversity.
This brings me to the role and psyche of India’s middle class, intellectuals and intelligentsia. 700 years of Muslim and British role as well as a stratified society has affected the psyche of intellectuals and the Indian middle class. Despite having a superior culture and life-philosophy we got beaten. The psychological effects in the middle class till today are there to see:
Political apathy
Confused identity: Who am I — Brahmin? Tamilian? Indian? Citizen?
Absence of the social value of wanting to make a difference
Fence-sitters
Lack of accountability
Sense of inferiority. Everything Western is better
Loss of confidence
Voicelessness
There is a difference between intellectual and intelligentsia. Intellectuals are strong at academics, but they are not committed to social change. Like terrorists, they too have a fixed world view, are dogmatic and doctrinaire. They espouse a viewpoint and are prepared to defend it all costs in classrooms, in front of TV cameras, in newspaper columns, and at cocktail parties. They could be successful civil servants, professors, CEOs, think-tanks and ideologues.
A Russian derivative, intelligentsias are different — intellectuals in their own right, who are global citizens. They are change-agents and active citizens who are committed to social and political reform. They have the unique ability of not taking sides but bringing opposite sides together.
Intelligentsia comprises people who shape public opinion. I expect you to join the intelligentsia, because the fight against terrorism and all forms of political and religious violence starts with you. You are critical stakeholders in the security of the India and the well-being of its people. If you give up we will lose out to the forces of evil. The tragedy of life is not the evil deeds by the evil people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
What are my expectations from you, the intelligentsia?
Be informed about your own religion. Most people are unaware of the fundamental tenets of their religion; they are carried away by the power of rituals and interpretations given by clerics and the priests. In my experience, most religious fundamentalists know little about the richness of their religion. I would like you to promote the central doctrine of all religions, which is rightful living and reverence for all forms of life – from atoms to molecules to insects, to trees, to animals, to human beings.
As members of the intelligentsia, I expect you to secure the middle ground between the two extreme positions of hate and sanity. Let me give you give an example of the prevailing opposites:
1. First Radical View: Haflz Saeed, Founder of Lashkar-e-Toiba.
“There cannot be any peace while India remains intact. Cut them, cut them so much that they kneel before you and ask for mercy.”
2. Opposite Radical View: Babu Bajrangi on camera during Gujarat riots.
“We didn’t spare a single Muslim shop; we set everything on fire... I don’t care if am hanged… just give me two days before my hanging and I will go and have a field day in Juhapura where seven or eight lakhs of these people stay… I will finish them off… at least 25,000 to 50,000 should die.”
As citizens, committed to nation-building you must pledge to make a difference in the local community, especially the poor and marginalized. As long as people remain poor they will be exploited by terrorists. The middle class has distanced itself from the poor; and unless this social gap is closed quickly, alienation in society will continue.
In conclusion, I wish to re-iterate that war and armed responses are no solution for problems that are political, cultural and religious. The ultimate answer lies in winning over people and isolating the terrorists. Towards this strategic goal, citizens and the intelligentsia of the nation play a pivotal role. They have to become agents of change and secure the middle ground.
Success will depend on how tolerant you are. Tolerance is lacking, and if you do not give space to dissent, we will go into reverse gear, into a dangerous situation where there are only two options – coexistence or no-existence. Unless the middle ground is expanded there will never be peace. The only impediment before us is fear. The terrorist intends to strike fear in our minds and create a climate of collapse and deter us in capturing the middle ground. I say; do not be afraid. Because if you are; then terrorists will win.
