Home BusinessCrisis and opportunity
Business Standard / New Delhi November 26, 2009, 0:29 IST
Pity poor Shivraj Patil. One year after the dastardly terrorist attack in Mumbai, he is the only government functionary who has been held accountable and punished. Almost everyone else, from the National Security Advisor to Maharashtra’s chief minister and home minister, not to mention other officials, has either been left untouched or been rewarded with a better job or more responsibility. So, the first lesson of 26/11 has not even been taught for anyone to have learnt it. That with power comes responsibility, and if that responsibility has not been properly discharged, then power should be withdrawn. Political and government leaderships in New Delhi and Mumbai have not served the nation well by not demanding accountability from more in the national security set-up and the government. The second important lesson of the terrorist attack was that we needed better coordination between the Centre and state governments, and their respective agencies, and between civil and defence agencies. The continued lack of such coordination is visible in the handling of the other security threat – the Maoist underground.
Oil rises on bullish US manufacturing data
What is most distressing about India’s response to the 26/11 attack is that the vocal middle class has been quite happy to demand accountability and action from Pakistan, without seeking similar accountability from the Indian government and security agencies. Equally distressing has been the electronic media’s response to universal criticism of the manner in which Indian TV channels covered the attack and its aftermath. There has been little soul-searching in the media, and virtually no punishment of bad professionals. Finally, the most disappointing aspect of the Indian response has been the follow up in terms of an enquiry into what went wrong, who was responsible and what should be done about it. Apart from the creation of a National Investigating Agency and the talk of police reform, there has been no systematic effort at putting together the information on hand and making it available to Parliament and public. A weak and divided Opposition has till today not even demanded a White Paper on the attack, the response to it and the follow up.
Given this lackadaisical national attitude, it should not surprise anyone if the response to another similar attack is equally chaotic. Given this domestic apathy, it is only to be expected that Pakistan has not felt compelled to respond. One year after the attack, and considering the domestic political response to the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement, India has no credible Pakistan policy in sight. Should India re-engage Pakistan, or sit on its haunches till there is a credible Pakistani response? This government’s response to the Mumbai attacks is no different from the National Democratic Alliance government’s response to the Parliament attack. Going forward, the only credible thing to do would be for the government to come forward with a White Paper listing out all the mistakes made, the lessons learnt, the actions taken and the people punished. Next, the government should evolve a new Pakistan policy based on the ground reality in Pakistan, of multiple centres of power, influence and interest. All this requires a higher degree of sophistication in dealing with Pakistan than is currently in evidence within the national security and foreign policy establishment.