Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Terror is pathology. But so it seems, in India, is the government’s response to terror. The one score and some serial bombs in Bangalore and Ahmedabad were met with cringe-inducing official harrumphs from Delhi that warnings had been given. It is time to ask what the Union government means when it says warnings were available. Is it the case that the Centre’s, or specifically the home ministry’s, radars are always buzzing efficiently with actionable information that is not acted upon by inefficient state governments? If so, why doesn’t the Centre say it straight? They have a duty to the nation to say it. And if that is not the case, as one strongly suspects is not the case, why take this, to put it bluntly, awful way to pass the parcel? It has to be said, in the context of this trait, that the UPA’s whole approach to terror has been scarily confusing.
The present home minister will demit office as having made a spectacular non-impression as far as his leadership of national security efforts go. It took the prime minister, that too after more than half of the UPA’s term in office was over, to say Naxalites were a high-priority threat to the idea of India. Can you recall the home minister taking political leadership of this national security issue? Can you recall him owning up to his remit as home minister vis-a-vis terror? And let’s remember that while strong and clear political positions are no guarantees against stopping terror, their absence severely weakens the government’s fight against it.
