Today, we have a situation where the government has no definite strategy to deal with terrorism. In the absence of POTA, we actually have no tough law to deter those who are practising terror as a profession.
Centre'scynical misadventure vis-a-vis its appeasement policies combined with the ineptitude of the highest degree to safeguard nation'sinterest is proving detrimental for the country.
The UPA government'spolicies of lopsided reservation and appeasement of terror should make everyone sit up with consternation since these have been tailor-made to undermine security and integrity of India. The Centre'spenchant for making a political capital out of the worsening security situation is almost astonishing. Its grotesque infatuation with consciously choosing divisive policies based on religion, caste, creed and community running counter to the spirit of our Constitution has crossed all sane limits. The UPA'slackadaisical approach to terror is weakening India'ssecurity for short term goals. Playing the appeasement of minorities card has led to a worsening of law and order situation in the country. The government'sinaction in absence of a pro active policy to deal with terror is only helping the anti-national elements. The spurt in terrorism that continues to inflict violence on hapless Indians is a case in point. This is a dangerous trend that does not auger well for the future. Are we to believe that the Prime Minister and the Home Minister have been living in denial as their commitment is towards vote bank politics rather than the national security? Indeed, the Centre'ssoft on terror policy, compromise of internal security and Islamisation of foreign policy makes one wonder whether the UPA is working on an agenda to undermine India?
In its foolhardy zeal to capture Muslim vote bank, the UPA has of late turned into a social crusader of sorts, campaigning the Muslim cause. As a matter of fact, there has been communalisation of development with the sudden appearance of sops for one particular community without taking into account the catastrophic effect such a step is bound to have in a democratic set up. Infact, showering special favours on one single community shows the UPA in a poor light besides being an expression of its political agenda. Dr. Singh'semphasis on ?Muslim priorities? is both dangerous as well as partisan. Such stark minorityism will only lead to a division in the country along religious lines.
However, the Congress party'spolitics of appeasement does not come as a bolt from the blue. Its hidden agenda of favouring Muslims goes back to the pre-Partition days. Even, after it recently came to power in 2004, its leaders have been vociferously demanding Muslim quotas, in pursuance of vote bank politics. It was during Indira Gandhi'sregime that Haj subsidies were first announced. Then again, Rajiv Gandhi'sproclivity to capitulate to Muslims was highlighted when his government overturned the Supreme Court judgement, on the issue of maintenance, to Shah Bano. Now the present regime has gone a step further by deciding to increase the Haj subsidy. But this latest appeasement sop of the UPA has come under severe criticism of the Muslim Community. Many political and religious Muslim leaders like Maulana Mehmood Madani, general secretary of the Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind, Syed Shahabuddin and others have not taken kindly to this largesee from the UPA since Islamic law forbids them to avail of any sops for Haj. This reprimand should serve as an eye opener for the Congress that can go to any extent to regain the trust of minorities in a bid to garner their votes.
It needs no reiteration that the UPA government has been deliberately underplaying the involvement of Pakistan and its sponsored Jehadis in terrorism incidents all across the country. The Joint Indo-Pak anti-terror mechanism has only come in handy for Pakistan to carry out its diabolical anti-India plot. The much hyped composite dialogue on J & K has also not paid any dividends. The UPA government'shandling of the issue speaks about its poor understanding of the stakes involved. One fails to understand why this pretention of composite dialogue with Pakistan when the cross border terrorism it sponsors, refuses to cease?
Until now, India was the accepted victim of terrorism and Pakistan, a state sponsoring terror. This changed dramatically when the PM described Pakistan as much a ?victim of terrorism? as India is. Why did our Prime Minister do the General'stalking by affirming the latter'spoint that Pakistan was doing enough to tackle terrorism? It is now clear that no amount of talking with Pakistan will bring about peace unless it gives up terrorism as an instrument of its state policy. In spite of that, India is genuflecting to the Pakistan General with the result that our soft approach is being interpreted as weakness. One wonders why India appears so desperate for a dialogue with Islamabad when the latter is in no mood to deliver on its promise of not supporting terrorism from its territory.
Today, we have a situation where the government has no definite strategy to deal with terrorism. In the absence of POTA, we actually have no tough law to deter those who are practising terror as a profession. The UPA government has proved itself to be incompetent to counter the security threat faced by the country. The lack of progress in the investigations into Mumbai blasts even after one year is perfect illustration of that. Same is the case with other blasts at Varanasi, New Delhi, Hyderabad and other places. The government appears to be totally at sea regarding probes into the plots behind all these attacks. Another argument doing the rounds is that in pursuance of its policy of competitive communalism, the UPA is deliberately allowing the investigations to go slow as they invariably end up leading to Muslims.
The UPA government'sdisingenuous move to demilitarise Jammu and Kashmir is yet another example of politics dictating security in the strife torn state. Moreover, the scaling back of the deployment of troops in the state would slacken the promptness of the security forces to meet any eventuality apart from seriously endangering peace. One is struck by the logic behind such a move at such a point of time when terrorists are again flexing their muscles due to the terror friendly policies of the UPA. There is little point in relocating troops in the terror hit state since nobody in his right mind would certify that the problem of infiltration has been solved. It is unfortunate that the PM, while giving in to the political blackmail of separatists and their mentors across the border, has not taken into account the security considerations of the country. In the long run, this policy of the UPA is going to prove a blunder, bound to extract a heavier price from the nation.
(The writer is a senior journalist and can be contacted at [email protected])