Acts of terrorism are designed to produce moral and emotional vertigo. The very casualness with which terrorists treat the lives of their victims, breach the order of things, interrupt an ongoing way of life and attempt to turn suffering into spectacle, shakes our grip on the world. What can we say that has not already been said? The words we use to condemn such acts, “heinous” or “dastardly”, seem to have worn out from overuse. It is not they are inappropriate, but even uttering them you feel the act itself slipping out of our ability to describe it. And then there is the question: why? But any answers we give deepen our sense of perplexity, they do not resolve it. The perpetrators of terrorism do not conform to any political logic in the ordinary sense of the term. They act as fugitive and shadowy presences that cannot be assimilated to ordinary conventions or rationality. There is no shortage of attempts to decode the purpose of these acts. They were designed to derail the peace process, give the ISI a continued raison d’etre, a conspiracy to weaken India. Those plumbing greater historical depth will be even more profound. They were an inchoate protest against God knows what: India’s alliance with America, revenge for Gujarat, solidarity with the Red Fort attackers, protest against cable television, or existence in general. Some will argue that terrorists are choosing soft targets because attacking really symbolic targets has become so much more difficult. Post-modernists will as usual come up with their ‘medium is the message’ stunt: the point is to use publicity itself. But in the end we have to admit that all this barely makes the wanton killing of dozens of innocents more inexplicable. We often associate terrorism with dark but grand causes: perhaps religion or nation. What else can explain the will to martyrdom? What can explain the immobilising of moral considerations? But the kind of terrorism Delhi experienced disconcerts for the opposite reason: there is certainly no martyrdom, only a sickly cowardice. Not that martyrdom justifies the actions carried out in its name, but it at least allows us to hold on to the illusion that the perpetrator is still operating within the space of reasons, how so ever warped they might be. Evil characters, at least tacitly, acknowledge the logic of morality, they are just on the wrong side. But the moral vertigo comes from the disquieting possibility that these perpetrators are beyond good and evil in every sense of the term. No wonder we want to say: Why ask Why? But moral vertigo afflicts our possible responses as well. If we mourn too much, we say the terrorists have won, they have disrupted life; if we don’t, we say terrorists have won because they have made us indifferent to the suffering of our citizens. We are, rightfully, angry, but against whom should that anger be appropriately directed? The perpetrators and their collaborators is the obvious answer. But here terrorism’s perverted logic comes into play. Is capitulating to the logic of violence a means to defeating it or a way of giving it succour and sustenance? What models should we look at? Hard states like Israel? It is doubtful that Israel has made itself more immune to terrorist attacks by its tactics. The US? If it is a model, it has worked only by radically increasing the risk of violence many countries around the world have faced. There is no certainty to the calculus of terrorism. As always, India will have to define its own path. It is a great tribute to the people of India and their maturity that they understand the complexity of terrorism. They have understood that the first step in dealing with terrorism is not succumbing to ideological uses of terrorism. This is a fragile achievement that politicians are too ready to fritter away. But it is an important one none the less. This resilience has helped avoid the cycle of violence and counter-violence that terrorists want. India has not abandoned reason or a sense of proportion. But we also cannot demand the impossible from our patience and reason. How do we act? Dealing with terrorism requires an extraordinary application of intelligence, in every sense of the term. We should not get side-tracked by peripheral debates like that over POTA that are more about appeasing our own sense that we are tough than they are about enhancing law enforcement capabilities. Effective law enforcement requires a far more sustained and different kind of attention than enacting laws. Despite severe setbacks, we should not lose focus on long term objectives for the sub-continent. Again, it is doubtful whether closing borders really brings you more security. In the long run terrorism can be defeated only if there is a shared public sphere across national boundaries, a set of common values that stands against violence of this kind. Creating this is an arduous process and we may not succeed. But we are sure to fail in our fight against terrorism if we do not even try. And finally, we have to recognise that not all our woes may be cross-border in character. There is no question that we should be putting pressure on Pakistan. But this has to go beyond a general exhortation to the Pakistani state to do more. Faces must be put on the collaborators within the Pakistani state and these must be shamed at every international forum possible. We should also recognise that all the talk of international solidarity over terrorism is a ritual enactment. One can overestimate US power, but there is no denying the fact that it has materially and ideologically sustained apparatus of power inside Pakistan that has most actively collaborated in inflicting damage upon India. In the guise of fighting terrorism it continues to strengthen the Pakistani military at the expense of its society. We call for inspections, international audits, for infractions for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties; war is waged on those pretexts and countries censured. Why not actively create a parallel process, with some teeth, for terrorism? Our terrorism diplomacy is probably far weaker than our nuclear diplomacy. But in the mean time one can at least acknowledge one hero in this fight: the vigilant DTC bus driver, Kuldeep Singh, whose presence of mind saved many lives and who is himself battling for his life today. (The writer is Member, National Knowledge Commission)
