India needs to be ruthless in its vengeance

As a child, I rarely fell asleep without listening to my grandmother narrate 'good-over-evil' stories from religious scriptures. Her dramatic story-telling ability held me enraptured as she described how gods took on the demons and crushed them. With 330 million gods to choose from and a near-perfect memory, her bank of stories was inexhaustible. At school, I learnt 'moral science,' which primarily consisted of religious tales of divine domination over wickedness.

I was in love with these godly heroes as they vanquished the forces of evil, mercilessly mowing them down. It took me slightly longer to realise that the magnitude of violence that lurked in religious anecdotes could hardly be matched by anything human. Yet I continued to be enamoured of Krishna and Christ alike.

For, to an impressionable mind of a child what mattered most was a sense of fairness, of justice. My mind, then, could not fathom what made people malevolent; all I believed was that the evil-doer pay the price for his sins, dearly.

Many moons have passed since then, but my love for Krishna and Christ is intact, and I still believe that evil should never go unpunished: the more severe the punishment, the bigger the deterrent it is for future violent acts. Or, I should say, the inevitability of punishment is the biggest deterrent.

However, there is nothing inevitable about India's resolve to wipe out terrorism.

But let me come back to the present. A day after the blasts, I boarded the first-class compartment of a Mumbai suburban train. It wasn't bursting at the seams with passengers, like it normally does, but I couldn't discern fear on the faces of my fellow passengers, only a weary cautiousness. Their voices, however, were laced with anger.

The snatches of conversation that I could hear centered on the Indian State's 'impotency' at fighting terrorism and what it should do to destroy terrorists. But the common man does not have the right to influence the State's policy towards matters as important as these, does he? So what if he has the right to vote governments to power.

India, time and again, has failed to wield the hammer against the lowly terrorist, often letting its citizens down. And despite what our leaders would have us believe, we are a soft State: a fact fully understood and exploited by terrorists.

After every such attack, the political establishment makes some threatening noises, hails the spirit of the civilians, holds aloft the pennant of peace, even launches buses to inimical nations, and then sits tight on its backside till the next wave of bombs rips the stuffing out of its citizenry. Then it is back to the same idiotic idiom.

But the common man, who actually bears the brunt of terrorism, has a different view, as that train ride told me. India needs to hit them where it hurts the most: squeeze the breath out of their networks, starve them for funds, take out their leaders (who we claim to know are hiding in this country or that), smash their hideouts, terrorise their associates.

No sooner is such an opinion voiced than human rights groups, 'saner' elements in the political firmament, self-styled negotiators and strategists jump into the fray to say: 'No, no, we should engage these 'people' in a dialogue. We are a peace-loving nation and terrorism needs to be resolved through peaceful means, through tolerance, through negotiations, abiding by international laws.'

We are told: 'We need to fight terrorism by understanding what triggers it and then remedying the situation. And by making 'them see reason.' Reason, my foot! The next thing you know' that bloke will be stuffing a dynamite stick down your throat and lighting the fuse.

Many people agree that international terrorism cannot be brought to an end only by the use of bombs and military might, but neither can it be ended with mere talk. What is needed is a heavy dose of ruthless action to go hand in hand with tactical and strategic negotiations.

The nation should be ready to negotiate, with the underlying condition that if there is any terrorist act against its citizens, there will be hell to pay.

This is not some original thought. We hear it all the time. The common man says:

* Strengthen the infrastructure and the intelligence network. * Educate the society on how to remain alert and control panic. * Set up crack commando groups -- comprising snipers, specially trained and equipped assault teams, state-sponsored combatants -- who will engage in unconventional warfare. * Dry up the terrorists' sources of funding: drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, playing on international stock markets, donations. * Keep a hawk's eye on hostile locations and smash them up. * Take out leaders of these organisations, no matter where they take refuge. * Tighten the nation's borders even more, except maybe for trade.

Not an easy task, but not impossible either. The might of the Indian State is hardly something to scoff at. Disuse of power is worse than its misuse. It is time for Indians to roll up their sleeves, spit on their hands and get to work.

The one-track 'mature, gentile, peaceful' way of unraveling this menace only ends up in making the nation appear impotent. Just because the citizens are brave and spirited doesn't mean they have to keep suffering.

The common man wants a strong message be sent out: if any Indian is harmed in any manner, we will hunt you down and exterminate you, no matter how fast you run or where you hide.

The terrorist has no human rights; he loses them the instant he points his gun at humanity. He is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention and international laws of war should not apply to him. Since he chooses to live by the gun, he deserves to die by it.

Sounds uncivilised? Like out of a trashy thriller? Maybe. But ask the newly-wed girl whose husband was blown to pieces in the blasts, ask the old widow whose only earning son will walk no more...

India needs to be ruthless in its vengeance. The inevitability of punishment could nip many a hostile intent in the bud.

Which brings me back to grandma's tales. Not one of those stories ended with the demon getting away unpunished. Not once was justice denied. But since then, the concept of justice has changed for me. No one wants justice, everyone wants a decision in his favour. So why not the common Indian? It is time we were given our slice of justice.

But can we do it? Or will the nation have to wait for divine assistance: a Krishna or a Christ to deliver us from terror?

"India needs to be ruthless." Fat chance. Unless a nation is ruled by one man, governments are never ruthless.

"Diplomacy, thy name is caution."

Sounds like America the day after 911. And now half the country has turned back into 910 wusses.

"India needs to be ruthless..."
I've always believed that if the largest demaocracy on earth wanted to to step up to the plate; they should join us in Iraq and Afganistan. Step up big time, at least 100k troops. I believe that if they would have done this in a big way the UN should take away the Veto power of France and award it to the worlds largest democracy.

Sounds uncivilised? Like out of a trashy thriller? Maybe. But ask the newly-wed girl whose husband was blown to pieces in the blasts, ask the old widow whose only earning son will walk no more...

India needs to be ruthless in its vengeance. The inevitability of punishment could nip many a hostile intent in the bud.

"they should join us in Iraq and Afganistan. "

India is already with the US in Afghanistan. But, it isn't with the US in Iraq. I think Indians are HOPING that USA succeeds(unlike, say, democrats...hmm), but is not public about it. Neither does it provide support to the US in its efforts. India will gladly take a US victory in Iraq, however.

Not to sound cliche, but I think the new century will be defined by US-UK-Israel-India-Japan-Australia cooperation and alliance. Possibly Russia, too, but they look too much of a wild card.

Absolutely.

Wish American would say this for the US, and for Israel. We need to be utterly ruthless in our vengence.

I lived in India, and I can assure you, that the hatred, of Islam is deeply seated, and goes back hundreds of year...their intelligence service is called RAW, mean, mean people

I agree with you.

I have had it with calls for Israel's restraint - I think they should let loose and just scorch the earth around them....

We would not have show such restraint.

This is a horrible and horrific crime and I agree with the writer, no more soft understanding. Terrorists only understand overwhelming force, they believe it is their obligation to die for islam. Talking to them only shows softness and a exposed belly to attack.

The Bush Administration (despite the boarder issue) got this message loud and clear after 9/11, it's such a shame that 1/2 of our population didn't and became Bush bashers.

I hope the people of our countries unite even more fully under this threat. The Democratic West including India is really waking up to the threat and it's a damn shame it didn't happen sooner.

"I lived in India, and I can assure you, that the hatred, of Islam is deeply seated, and goes back hundreds of year...their intelligence service is called RAW, mean, mean people"

I certainly don't have to ask why you say this. I like and study global history. Islam has been a boil on the human population since the 8th century. Any peaceful passages in the Koran of any value to the world are quickly muted out by
passages instructing followers to murder, enslave and betray non-believers. Good luck over there my Indian freedom-loving brother (or sister). We're all in this conflict together!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.