room for the seminar were Jaswant Singh Baines, president of the IBFF, and Ajit Singh Sat-Bhambra, of the IBFF and managing editor of Asian Affairs.

As might be expected, the further from the current seat of world terrorism, in the sub-continent, the more benign were the views and the proposed remedies of the speakers.

Dr Roy-Chaudhury said that India had been the victim of no fewer than eight serious terrorist incidents in recent years but the attack on Mumbai stood out not only because of the number of victims but because of the sheer audacity and aggression of the attacks which had been meticulously prepared.

Placing the blame for the attack on Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based Islamic group, which he said had originated as a group associated with fighting for the freedom of Kashmir but which now had 'far grander' aims which included not only waging jihad against Islamic Pakistan and other non-Islamic governments in southern and central Asia but represented a 'clear and present danger' to the world at large through its links to Al-Qaeda. Its leader was now under house arrest.

The Indian government had taken several measures after the attacks to enhance security including the introduction of new anti-terror legislation such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment and the National Investigative Agency (NIA) Act along with several important administrative, infrastructural and operational decisions. The establishment of the NIA had, for the first time, given the country a federal agency to deal with terrorism on a national scale with eight major laws covering investigations and the provision of special courts and judges.

But the constant changes in legislation had created confusion in the state apparatus and the latest doubling of the length of time that suspects might be held without charge to 180 days was controversial, being one of the longest such periods proposed in any democratic state.
India's response had been a diplomatic campaign to put pressure on Pakistan which had so far yielded limited results.

For the new architecture to yield results in the future there needed to be greater co-operation between different agencies in India and the overcoming of turf issues. In implementation a lot needed to be done for while there had been some success in arresting people, it had taken 15 years to get verdicts against the perpetrators in an earlier attack on Mumbai.

Dr Sahni said that the improvements to India's anti-terrorist infrastructure remained meaningless unless they were properly resourced. The new NIA would have a budget of approximately £1m and eight officers 'with not even an office to sit in.' The total strength of the intelligence force was 28,000 of which 3,500 were in the field while only 300 of them were actually deployed in counter-terrorism.

Dr Tsang said that the important    thing to understand was that terrorism    is theatre as was clear from the    Mumbai attack in which the attackers kept the world enthralled for hours through the medium of rolling cable news stations.

Al Qaeda's modus operandi is to attract the world's attention to its cause by spectacular operations, he said, but it was former president George Bush who guaranteed their success by his response rather by the number of people who actually died at the hands of the terrorists. Though the earlier attack on the Twin Towers had faded in the public mind the declaration of the global 'war on terror' ensured that the Al Qaeda actors in the 9/11 drama were elevated to the point where they rivalled the power of the main world states. The key was in the response, he said, noting 'if you put the military in charge you'll get a military response.' What was required was a minimum force law and order response. 'How can you win a war against a method?'

What was now required was to go on the attack with ideas by reaching out to young Muslims who were attracted to radical ideas and to contest some of the more radical interpretations of the Koran. 'You can't catch all their     people; you have to think of it as a war of ideas.'

Dr Sahni was somewhat scornful of the notion of bringing on the re-interpretation of the Koran. In India, Deobandis had been rejecting    terrorism but 'in Pakistan if you do that you'll get a bullet in the back of the  neck.' What was missing was the understanding that a single individual with a gun rendered such debate superfluous: the jihadist creed was  being propagated through the barrel of    a gun and unless the elites pursuing that approach could be contacted there was no prospect of engaging in a debate. There must be a debate if they were to   be defeated.

If the effort to defeat terrorism in Pakistan were to stand any chance of success then the outlying territories must be brought under control: 'you cannot defend what you cannot control…the entire effort to control terrorism is dependent upon restoring minimum order.'

In the current situation more and more power was being given to the people who threatened us with terror. Billions of dollars were being given to improve the conditions of the poor in Pakistan but it was finding its way to the corrupt elite. 'Is that the right policy? You have to diminish their capacity to attack. If you continue to give into blackmail, Pakistan will implode and take the whole of the region down with it.'

He said that government responses had been paralysed because of the weakness of systems. Governments were completely taken by surprise again and again.

'None of the responses we have seen from the Indian government has the capacity to prevent a new attack,' said Dr Sahni and to those who called for the addressing of root causes in the tackling of terrorism he said that none of the successful recent campaigns against violent groups in India had addressed root causes. There was no capacity to address the grievances of the Shia population.

The only way to tackle terrorism was to impose costs on those carrying it out whether they be on states or on individuals and he warned that negotiations had never been held with terrorists unless they had been beaten while ceasefires were only used to rebuild the firepower of the group.
The academic also said that it was time to stop making a distinction between domestic and international terrorism: 'If you don't squash every nascent movement it has the possibility of becoming an international movement.'
In a point which may find an echo in future such discussions, Dr Sahni noted that it was somewhat inappropriate to frame the debate in terms of democracy and terrorism as though there were alternative forms of government which would be more applicable as though countries might be willing to ditch this form of government in pursuit of their objectives. In reality, authoritarian governments have had no more success against terror.

Debate: Voices & Views

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne MEP: I warmly congratulate the Indo-British Friendship Forum and its leadership Mr. Jaswant Singh Baines and Mr. Singh Sat-Bhambra for their timely support for this groundbreaking debate here in The House of Lords. Our three key speakers delivered excellent presentations leading to a very fruitful and thought-provoking debate from different angles with many practical points on how to overcome terrorism.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote CBE: Thank you for the most interesting conference; all speakers brought distinct yet complimentary perspectives as to how to deal with the very real threat we all face from terrorism — and the questions and comments from the audience were equally stimulating.

Lord Dahrendorf KBE drew attention to the historical perspective, commenting that an examination of the causes and resolutions of early episodes of terrorism in different times and territories is needed to understand the means through which these phases were ended. He added that potential supporters of terrorism saw it as a mechanism for change, whether territorial, economic, or otherwise. The meeting accepted Lord Dahrendorf's view as an imperative for analysis for discussion at future debates.

His Excellency Ambassador Dr. Rahim Sherzoy from the Afghan Embassy to the UK thanked Baroness Nicholson MEP 'for such an interesting night under your very successful leadership' and that he will be happy to join if 'you give me this honour in future'. He declared that peace and reconciliation must always be at the forefront in order to overcome politically motivated violence and terrorism.

Mr. Justin Gest, Co-Director Migration Studies, Ralph Miliband Scholar in Political Sociology, London School of Economics, thanked Baroness Nicholson 'for leading a very stimulating discussion' and organising an 'exceptionally interesting and enjoyable afternoon'.

Mr. Krishan Bhatia from News India in London stated that 'I found the event very informative and useful, and felt impressed by the inputs and the discussion. I would like to attend any future discussion on this or other critical issues. Please keep me informed.'

Mr. Gideon Bresler, Head of Risk Management, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated that he 'enjoyed participating at an extremely informative and lively debate'.

Ms Krishna Bhan, Representative of the Hindu Council, UK, affirmed regarding the afternoon discussion: 'Excellent debate. The presentations were brilliant and well presented. The question and answer sessions were most informative. I was amazed at the enthusiasm and the interest that was shown by the participants in their discussions. Thank you for inviting me and I look forward to the next discussion on such issues…'

Urdutahzeeb.net holds debate

United against terrorism

On the afternoon of March 20, 2009, Urdutahzeeb.net, in association with Bharat Sanskriti Heritage Society (Mumbai), hosted a round table discussion on the 'Composite Culture of India'. Held at Hamdard University in New Delhi, the event attracted over 60 people from varied backgrounds.
The main speakers were Syed Ausaf Ali, Director, Hamdard Archives, Prof Rama P Dhokalia, a renowned scholar, Dr Gulzar Zutshi Dehlvi, national poet and scholar, Mrs. Manorama Deewan, noted journalist and Prof Altaf Ahmed Azmi, eminent Islamic scholar. Several other professors, teachers and students also participated in the exchange of views.
The discussion was opened by Syed Ausaf Ali who welcomed the guests and condemned last year's terror outrage in Mumbai. He admired the way the Mumbai residents faced up to the tragedy with calm and wisdom. He also paid homage to those who laid down their lives while protecting innocent people. The thread of the discussion was picked up by Dr Gulzar Dehlvi who quoted couplets from other poets and from his own compositions appreciating the composure of Mumbai citizens in the face of grave provocation and condemning those who engineer communal hatred. He cited few examples from Quran, Gita and Guru Granth Saheb.
Several people participated in the discussion and appreciated the steps taken by Urdutahzeeb.net in exposing those who generate hatred and segregation instead of helping people live together side by side.
Participants were unanimous in advocating that all peace loving people should stand united in the fight against terrorism.

top