Barun S. Mitra

The recent hijacking of an Indian Airlines’ plane and the crossing of Karmapa Lama from Tibet to India have on the surface nothing in common. Yet the two incidents provide contrasting lessons in national security, something we in India would do well to consider.

The Karmapa, the living Buddha, came over ostensibly to gather certain instruments and documents. But he came without proper travel documents and trekked over a week through the Himalayan passes at the height of winter. So dramatic has been his arrival that it is being compared with that of the Dalai Lama’s over 40 years ago.

Even without going in to the nature of Chinese occupation of Tibet, one has to admit that the subdued reaction from Bejing contrasted well with the limelight on the Karmapa. First, by generally keeping quiet it sought to underplay the significance of Karmapa’s visit. More importantly, by maintaining a studied silence, it has successfully sown doubts among a section of Tibetan opinion in exile. While some wants to consider the Karmapa’s arrival as a significant blow to China, others think he may be a plant from China. This diplomatic silence has clearly helped China lower the cost of Karmapa’s departure.

Now consider the approach of the Indian government to the hijacking. Firstly, it is now clear from the different voices within the government that the cost of tradeoff has been high. However, instead of keeping a low profile and focussing on the victims of the highjacking, the Indian authorities have sought to engage in a shrill duel of words. Ironically, this has only helped to underscore the very high cost the country has had to pay. Clearly, we have no idea of damage limitation. A stark contrast to the Chinese silence on the Karmapa has turned an apparent loss to an advantage.

Of course, there are significant security issues concerning the highjack that needs to be considered. Perhaps the greatest security lapse was not so much in Kathmandu, but the impact of an unverified and unsecured telephone call from one alleged G. Lal claiming to represent the government. It is incredible that at the height of a serious security crisis, such a blank phone call could have had a bearing on the officers at Amritsar, who allowed the plane to takeoff.

Another issue that has attracted criticism is that almost three hours had gone since the first report of the highjack, and yet the government and the security agencies had not been able to put their act together. Indeed if one is in a cynical mood, one can’t but wonder whether the slow response was actually a reflection of the division within the government, and perhaps the flight IC-814’s departure from Amritsar actually brought a sense of relief among the authorities. Could it be that by letting the plane leave, the authorities actually sought to shy away from their own responsibility towards its own citizens. After all, any tragedy could then be conveniently laid at the foot of the foreign authorities or the terrorists.

This looks even more plausible if one considers the callous attitude of the government and the airlines’ in the initial days of highjacking towards the relatives of the victims, and reinforced by the reported indifference with which the victims have been treated since their return. For instance, even after a week, the files had not moved to enable the trauma team put together by defense agencies like the DRDO to counsel the victims. It is this same culture of indifference towards the people that permeates virtually all levels of state apparatus, particularly those created to provide some service.

Quite a few people had commented on the apparent lack of political will within the country to face this crisis unitedly. Perhaps this was due to the corrosion of legitimacy of the Indian government. For instance, one of the main militants released was Maulana Masood Azar. Going the foreign and Indian media reports during the crisis, it was difficult to know whether he was a religious leader, a Kashmiri separatist, a militant, or a terrorist. Azar was arrested within weeks of entering India with improper or false documents and had $70,000 in cash. First, these by themselves could not be such a serious offence in ftoday’s globalised world.

Secondly, even more serious is the fact that in the five years Azar was not prosecuted, tried and convicted. He was like hundreds of others Indians held under various security laws of one kind or another for years without trial and conviction. Hundreds of Indians are still languishing in prison under the lapsed TADA law. It is clear that such laws, instead of securing safety of citizens, have contributed to the destruction of respect for rule of law, and made the executive and judiciary slothful.

Finally, the role of Pakistan and other international forces in supporting or sympathising with militant elements in India are not much in doubt. However this should require a more thorough preparation than mere repetition of the accusations. It requires that Indian agencies diligently gather information, pursue the investigation, bring about prosecution and obtain conviction in a demonstrably free and fair manner. Otherwise, its claims may be quite counter-productive. For instance, the failure to apprehend the killers of the Steins in Orissa last year, or the perpetrators of various extremist violence in different parts of the country could unfortunately be interpreted as a sign of collusion with the powers that be.

There is a fundamental difference between a legitimate state action and terrorism. Both resort to force, but the former action is considered lawful, while the latter is criminal. To retain this distinction, the state has not only to follow the rules scrupulously but also should be seen as such. Unless the Indian State rediscovers a respect for the rule of law, it is likely to find the so-called "political will" lacking when it is needed most.

The bravery of Captain Sharan, his crew and the passengers who came out of the hijacked plane provides a glimpse of what ordinary people are capable of withstanding. The question is whether our government, legislators and judiciary will be able to restore the respect for rule of law, and regain the political legitimacy that can only flow from the consent of the governed.

Only then we will be able to face the tragedy and trauma caused

by terrorism with unity and fortitude.

(The author is with Liberty Institute, an independent think tank in New Delhi. E-Mail address for reaching him is: bmitra@bigfoot.com.)