:: Nitish Sengupta

The game of passing the buck must stop

By Nitish Sengupta

Dec. 10: In retrospect, the Mumbai terror of November has hit India harder than the October Wall Street crisis. It has affected both foreign investment and tourism from overseas in a variety of ways. The effects on both counts will also be felt over time unless immediate corrective actions are taken.

The new home minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, deserves kudos for admitting that certain lapses took place before the Mumbai terrorist outrage of last week. We need not go into the much discussed failure of our intelligence system. All the intelligence agencies have to share the blame for the lack of necessary information, and for their failure to pass this on to the authorities who had the power to act in time, so that the atrocities could have been avoided. The game of passing the buck must stop. But if it is true that some intelligence agency did alert our Navy, it is not correct for the Navy Chief to say there was no actionable information. Similarly, for the national security adviser to say the intelligence agencies were aware of some reconnaissance team having come from outside to Mumbai, but that it had already gone away, is a curious statement. The question arises as to what the authorities did on that occasion, and how did they allow the reconnaissance team to come to Mumbai and go away at their own sweet will. An explanation is due.

But the more serious lapse was by the Coast Guard vessel which had apparently intercepted the rogue vessel Kuber, on which the terrorists came to Mumbai, but that on the crew of the vessel, flashing some fake fishermen's identity cards, it was allowed to go. Why was no on-the-boat inspection ordered, as normal drill would have demanded? If that had transpired, the terrorists' actions would have been thwarted and the terror strikes in Mumbai prevented. This is an unpardonable lapse. Also, there was a certain lack of seriousness and a casual attitude on the part of people in general. One eyewitness had seen the terrorists get off rubber boats at the Gateway of India and proceed inland carrying big bags. But it did not occur to the eyewitness concerned to report the matter to the police or to raise an alarm. He simply proceeded to report for duty wherever he was employed. Had he informed the police, the tragedy might have been checkmated. Similarly, the security staff of the two hotels failed lamentably to detect the terrorists carrying big bags into their hotels. Incidentally, if it is true that some of the terrorists booked rooms in these hotels ahead of the actual attacks, used them as storage for weapons and explosives, and during the attacks used them as control rooms, as is being rumoured, then they cannot escape the accusation of unwittingly helping the terrorists. Then, assuming that the terrorists landed at two places on the Mumbai coast, namely at Badhwar Park and Gateway of India, they could not have made for destinations like CST or the Oberoi Hotel, which aren't exactly walking distance, without help from local associates, who might have provided them transport. There is an intriguing silence on the part of the investigating agencies on this point.

Finally, the delay of several hours in the NSG reaching the site, allowing the terrorists to consolidate and kill more innocent people, requires much explaining. Typical of the casual attitude was the way in which three senior police officials chose to rush to the spot in one car without bothering to know what type of terrorists were present and what kind of weapons they were carrying. And without wearing Kevlar jackets, as a report says.

Looking at the grand spectacle that was presented by the electronic media for nearly 60 hours, one cannot help asking why our forces took so long to flush out eight terrorists. Why couldn't they have used gas much earlier to make the terrorists unconscious? Yes, in that process, some of the hostages would have been made unconscious, but that risk was worth taking in the interest of shortening the crisis, capturing more of the terrorists alive and, eventually, saving more hostages. The pathetic fact remains that the NSG took 60 hours to deal with only eight terrorists. There is a theory that the actual number of terrorists was more than 10 and that some of them fled and got lost in Mumbai city. This requires immediate attention and strong vigil.

It is now quite clear that Pakistan's ISI was deeply involved in this whole operation. There are Pakistan ordinance markings on some of the bullets, grenades and explosives recovered. The statements given by the only terrorist to be captured alive provide ample evidence to show the close link between the ISI and the LeT with the 10 terrorists who came to Mumbai that fateful evening. US intelligence has also testified to the strong linkage between the ISI and the perpetrators of the Mumbai crime. The ISI is an organ of the Pakistan armed forces, and, to that extent, of the Pakistan government. In view of this clear evidence, one can easily invoke Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter, which prohibits a member nation from taking any action against the territorial integrity and political independence of another member nation. In the present case, Pakistan has violated India's sovereignty and caused loss of life and property through armed irregulars who are under the control of the ISI, a Pakistan government wing. This is not to suggest that India should appeal to the UN. Our experience of complaining to the UN about Pakistan on the Kashmir issue in 1948 has not been a happy one. But India has concrete support from the US, UK and the entire West in any strategy she may adopt against terror emanating from Pakistan.

India can put pressure on the IMF to cancel the big loan recently sanctioned to Pakistan and in that process pressure Pakistan. She will no doubt have the complete support of the US and other powers that have influence on the IMF. Similar pressure can be applied to other multilateral agencies to treat Pakistan as an outcast. Finally, India can think in terms of unilateral action in eliminating the training centres of the terrorists near Karachi and Muzaffarabad by swift airstrikes and invoke the provisions of the UN Charter in defence of the action. Indian public opinion is clamouring for demonstrative action on the part of our government and they need to take note of it. The fact remains that the terrorist action between November 26 and 29 has caused more damage to India's economy than the Wall Street crisis of the previous month. It has not only caused damage to India's predominant financial centre, but has directly hit India's tourism industry hard. It has also affected foreign investment prospects in the short run. On both these counts, India will take a long time to recover from this shock.

Nitish Sengupta, an academic and an author, is a former Member of Parliament and a former secretary to the Government of India