FROM THE ARCHIVES

Striking at the heart

file-parliament-pti (File) Terror returned to Delhi with a vengeance on December 13, 2001 | PTI

Terror returns with a vengeance to Delhi. Will the December 13 attack against the seat of Indian democracy provoke India into adopting the option of hot pursuit?

Atal Bihari Vajpayee was delayed till 11.15 on the morning of December 13, busy at a meeting with BJP colleague Madan Lai Khurana at his residence. Meeting over, he was preparing to leave for Parliament when his secretary suggested they switch on the television to check if Parliament had been adjourned for the day. It had, so Vajpayee stayed at home.

Congress leader Sonia Gandhi did come to Parliament, but unlike most MPs, she never cares to hang around unless she has specific work. The moment the Lok Sabha was adjourned she left.

kumari-selja

But Home Minister Lai Krishna Advani had remained closeted in his parliamentary office with Law Minister Aran Jaitley. Defence Minister George Fernandes and Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh were also in their offices when terror struck. Vice-President Krishan Kant had actually summoned his car—waiting near Gate 11 which the terrorists stormed—but was delayed by Lok Sabha Deputy Speaker P.M. Sayeed's phone call. Sayeed was bringing over an old friend from Bangalore. Even as Kant was greeting him there came the sound of explosions and gunfire. Three of Kant's securitymen waiting near the car died.

Terror returned to Delhi with a vengeance on December 13, bringing back 15-year-old memories of the Punjab insurgency with its regular bomb blasts in public places. Kashmiri terrorists so far had refrained from making their presence felt here, apart from isolated incidents like the attack on the Red Fort on December 22 last year. No longer. The attack on Parliament was no doubt repulsed in 40 minutes and all five militants were killed. But if Kashmir militants, like their predecessors in Punjab, decide to make targeting Delhi a habit, a nightmare lies ahead both for citizens and policy-makers.

"We have identified around 100 targets in the capital, ranging from Rashtrapati Bhavan to railway stations which have immense social, economic or symbolic value," said a security expert. "All these will have to be well protected.

How well protected? And is security—no matter how strong—effective at crucial moments? Few places in the country are as well fortified as Parliament, with several security rings. The authorities had received repeated warnings that Parliament was on the hit-list, most recently from an activist of al Qaeda arrested in Mumbai. It was also a fairly amateurish, ill-planned attack: even the fake home ministry pass stuck on the windscreen of the white Ambassador the terrorists used, abounded in wrong spellings and cheeky jibes at Indian leaders.

Yet when the attack came, it cost 7 innocent lives and left over 20 wounded. The heroism of the security staff who pursued and gunned down the terrorists is indubitable. Jagdish Yadav, one of Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairperson Najma Heptullah's securitymen, even pursued the assailants despite being unarmed. He paid with his life for doing so.

But the question remains: was there a security breach at this most sacrosanct of public buildings? Shouldn't the terrorists have somehow been prevented from crossing even the first, outer gate? It is a debate that can rage forever: some experts maintain that an attacker—specially one bent on suicide—always has the advantage of surprise, while others insist that the breach should never have taken place.

The attack on Parliament points to a new trend among Kashmiri militants to deliberately seek out hard targets, not soft ones," observed a senior security officer. Be it the assault on the Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly in October, the forced entry into the Badamibagh cantonment earlier or the raid on the Kupwara BSF camp, the terrorists have focused on high-security spots, unmindful of the casualties they suffer in the process. What does it gain them?

The original plan must have been to target ministers, or else hold some legislator hostage within Parliament building. The contents of the terrorists' backpacks—cell phone and food stuff—show they were prepared for a long haul. The plan failed. Yet analysts maintained that such attacks, even when they are repulsed, bring tangible gains to the separatist cause.

They frighten the public and, as a corollary, their sheer audacity boosts the morale of those supporting the movement, thereby spurring fresh recruitment. With Islamic fundamentalism on the defensive following the reverses in Afghanistan, such spectacular actions serve to revitalise the dispirited. The attack also sends a strong signal that neither General Pervez Musharraf s changed public stance on terrorism nor the recent reverses suffered by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban have weakened the Kashmir insurgents. The struggle over Kashmir is far from over, even if the Taliban is out of power.

'There is also always the possibility that India may overreact, and take up the 'hot pursuit' option which is being talked about so much," said an official. "Hot pursuit suits the terrorists' interest, for it is bound to lead to international intervention. Internationalising the Kashmir issue is precisely what the terrorists and Pakistan want." And indeed, when the Cabinet Committee on Security met later the same day, and policy-makers pondered their options, 'hot pursuit' was once again seriously discussed, but for the time being, rejected.

Yet what other options does India have? No fresh strategy has been formulated though sources indicated that CCS members had all agreed upon the need for some spectacular success against the terrorists to offset the events of December 13. The immediate concern is obviously to find out who the killers were, the details of the plans they hatched, and who harboured and guided them. "We have to pinpoint and smash the terrorist networks at least within our own country first," a home ministry official said. All were agreed on the need to build up further international pressure against Pakistan for its supportive role to terrorists.

The political fallout of the attacks, however, is likely to be far from displeasing to the Vajpayee government. Opposition leaders hope to put the BJP in the dock by harping on lax security. BJP sources, on the other hand, maintain that stressing the far greater catastrophe that might have occurred but for the prompt action of the security staff, will carry the day. "It is the MPs who must cooperate if security at the gates of Parliament is to be improved," said a BJP minister.

The pros and cons of the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) have been debated ad nauseam in all fora, including Parliament. The opposition leaders have indicated that their stand on POTO remains unchanged despite Black Thursday. The opposition may not
have changed its position, but BJP leaders feel public sentiment has altered, including in those states which go to the polls next February. Never was the need for a strong anti-terrorist law better underlined than by the events of December 13. "We did not want to make POTO an election issue," said BJP general secretary Sunil Shastri. "The Prime Minister openly said he was willing to consider changes. But given the present situation, if the legislation is defeated, we will have no choice but to explain to the people why terrorism still continues."

BJP circles confirm that if POTO falls through, the BJP-ruled states are likely to enact similar legislation, pointing out that Congress-ruled Maharashtra has already done so. 'The Congress double standards will be exposed," said Shastri. Subtly the BJP will try to paint the opposition parties as soft on terrorism, and in the prevailing atmosphere, may well succeed.

This article was the lead story in the issue dated December 23, 2001. 

This browser settings will not support to add bookmarks programmatically. Please press Ctrl+D or change settings to bookmark this page.

Related Reading