What or whom do we blame for our terrorism deaths?
Now that everyone knows that it’s not America, Britain or Israel who lost the most lives to terror…its India, (if one leaves out Iraq) can we demand some answers from our government?
Why is our country suffering so much? I thought I would try and find the answers to these questions…but when I started to, I had no idea that I would find so many of them! I found eleven, and it was much like opening a can of worms.
Let me summarize these points for you here…mostly gleaned from newspaper reports (they are not listed in order of importance):
1. Our Intelligence Bureau does not have the ability to sniff out the jehadis. In other words, our Intelligence isn’t good enough.
2. India has a ‘soft’ attitude towards tackling terror. This could mean a lack of aggressive posturing by those in the highest office towards Pakistan and Bangladesh in the international fora or it could be our typically defensive stances. For example taking the trouble to provide Pakistan of “evidence on individual acts of terrorism, which will naturally be rejected by Pakistan.” Such behavior tells them that we are weak.
We just might be doing this to try and keep the US happy (they need Musharuff and Pakistan to fight Al Qaeda). Perhaps we like to believe that Mush cannot control the jehadis.
3. We are not militarily aggressive like America or Israel.
4. The widespread corruption in our country makes it easy for terrorists to get an Indian identity and get away if caught. By bribing a few officials it is easy to make fake passports, ration cards and other documents. Its cheap and its quick. For just Rs 35,000 (865 USD), anyone who ‘looks’ Indian can acquire Indian citizenship and that too in just 45 days!
And worse, suspected terrorists are let off with a few bribes. Early this year eight suspected Lashker-e-Toiba militants who entered Indian waters through the sea-route were caught, but were “mysteriously let off.” It is alleged that Rs 10 lakh changed hands.
Corruption has become so much a part and parcel of life in India that people have stopped thinking of the repercussions.
5. India scrapped the draconian legislation, POTA (Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act, which allowed detention of suspects without the filing of charges and allowed law enforcement agencies to withhold the identities of witnesses and treat confessions as an admission of guilt) because it led to human rights violations. The law was replaced by TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and this law isn’t good enough…but I think that its our weak and slow judiciary, and its susceptibility to corruption which is the greater problem.
6. India takes a soft approach to tackling terrorism to appease the minorities for political gains. This ranges from a fear of making large scale arrests and searches, to a reluctance to arrest suspected terrorists, specially if these suspects are contesting elections. It is known that criminals are active in Indian politics.
Interestingly, the Andhra Pradesh government claimed that they could not take preventive action inspite of getting a warning of the blasts in Hyderabd as they were afraid of causing Hindu-Muslims riots. This was probably an exaggerated claim to whitewash their inaction, but yes, Muslims organizations do complain of harassment by the police during searches. It is a delicate balance to achieve…conduct searches and question people, but don’t harrass. I don’t think we have achieved this balance…and I wonder if it is possible to achieve it.
7. We do not allocate sufficient funds to fight terrorism. For example we do not use surveillance equipment on a large enough scale. Terrorism in the UK has vastly reduced because of the use of surveillance cameras.
8. There are suspicions of a terrorist politician nexus in some northern states like Jammu & Kashmir.
9. India simply cannot cope because it is facing terrorism of all kinds and from all sides! In the north eastern states there is insurgency, and there are naxalites in the northern regions. And ofcourse, terrorists attacks from jehadi groups from Pakistan.
10. India is surrounded by politically unstable nations like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal who because of their very nature are good ‘breeding grounds’ for terrorists. In fact, as this report explains so well, our neighbor Pakistan is now considered “the largest exporter of terrorism’ to the rest of the world.
11. Overall, there is a casual attitude towards security as policemen do not check people as well as they should.
In general there is lax security. Even educational institutions don’t bother to check antecedents of students! They may have a radical background and have been denied admission in their own countries…but India welcomes them!
Well, I certainly think that our government, our investigators and our judiciary need to get their act together and we citizens too. We are to blame for tolerating corruption. As for waging a war on Pakistan, I doubt whether that will solve anything.
On a more positive note, India has come a long way in the last two decades and its ability of fight terrorism has improved greatly. Various counter-terrorism strategies have been developed and border surveillance has increased. So much so that terrorists are being forced to use sea-routes to get into India more easily. Lets hope that more is done…in other words we need more political will and we need greater vigilance from citizens and less tolerance!
Related Reading: Was repealing POTA (anti-terrorism law) a mistake?
Sleeper cells proliferate while the government sleeps
Better security with higher technology
Lets not call them terrorists, let us call them criminals
Share this post:digg it|kick it|Email it|bookmark it|reddit|liveIt
A wide angle view of India 
In that article, Raman says, the conviction rate is less than 10% in India. Despite that we let off people on mercy pleas. Saving Afzal Guru from being executed became the single point of focus for the media.
Scrapping POTA was the most important thing for the Government first up.
There are Madrasas that are unregulated. Again a case of appeasement.
We empathise with Pakistan – source of much of the terror directed against India – by saying that both of us are targets of terror.
Infiltrators from Bangladesh are legitimized to balloon the minority vote bank.
It becomes for the secularists to empower Maoists in Nepal to destroy a Hindu Kingdom. This despite the fact that the very same Maoists are causing havoc here.
This goes on. One common strand across all these instances is that much of the responsibility for all these are the actions of the self-proclaimed ‘secular-liberal’ people at the helm of affairs in this country.
Point 1,2 and 3 are quite strong and ones that I have always brought up in discussions… being so high on terrorist hit list, we always give the impression of being a soft state… other states like Israel and Russia have a no-negotiation policy with terrorists who have taken hostages or otherwise… we negotiate, and then bow down to their demands (I am referring to the Indian Airlines hijacking and release of terrorists that followed)… Compare the same situation with Beslan School Hostage crisis or Moscow Theater siege….. but we not militarily aggressive because we are neither the strongest nation in the world nor do we have the unconditional backing of the strongest nation in the world… lot of international politics and China comes into play…. laws like POTA have always raised suspicion among the minorities that it will give the corrupt police unchecked power. As a result of this, even genuine arrests under this law are potrayed as a ‘suppression of minorities’ act. This is where judiciary has to step in to be more prompt, efficient and stronger as you already mentioned…. Wouldn’t agree with point 9. We have the abiliy to cope… just the Will is missing along with other reasons mentioned above… one more thing – I dont justify insurgency in the north east, but the govt is a lot to blame for the current situation there… for 50 years those states have been completely neglected, void of all development as though they never existed…
i haven’t rather we haven’t been affected by terrorism in TN more particularly in Chennai….but anyway it is coming soon…it takes us time …
well i do people never see from the perspective of the terrorists??remember we fought for freedom and then the Britishers called us terrorists or whatever?what leads to fight?they don’t kill without a reason do they??why do we never see it?is it because we are scared to accept the truth…i am not coming to say leave them free….someone needs to talk to them…we can say their demands are tooo much but remember they have suffered…we take about humane conditions and things to live in…but one fact must be they never got it…if you ask me USA is thew biggest terrorist…every son of Iraq may rise up and destory the world….for we have killed their fathers….
When it comes to fighting with Terrorism in India – I feel sense of Gandhism here..
In US, President Bush called it as a war against terrorism.. and they really acted very well.. I feel he was right.
After so many terror attacks, how did we respond.. both individually and collectively? It looks like – we are waiting for few more terrible attacks to realise. and It’s sad to see Govt. n also our public acting too slow & less aggressive in protecting Humanity. It’s been prooved damn easy for any terrorist to settle here n operate some misreable attacks.
Nita, Great post again! When one reads this post I am sure this creates heavy heat in them..
Harish, the word secular has sure got a bad connotation in our country now, although the real meaning of the word is good! Also, to my mind the word liberal is still good!
Oemar, yes I too think its time we became a ‘harder’ state…I feel as we grow economically it may be possible. We need to become more aggressive with those countries which threaten us.
Vishesh, I am sure the terrorists have a grievance, but terrorism is about attacking ordinary, unarmed, unsuspecting people because terrorists are simply – criminals.
Bharath, you put it in a nutshell…we still live in Gandhi’s shadow!! And what you said is so right…maybe the Indian government is waiting for the situation to get worse before they wake up!!
“..we haven’t been affected by terrorism in TN more particularly in Chennai….”
Hmm. Too young to remember Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination then, eh? 🙂
At the risk of opening another can of worms, I have to say terrorism targets are chosen for maximum impact in financial, social, political and symbolic terms.
All one needs is to go through Nita’s list at the start of the article and start analysing each country’s “record” by location to see how widely true this is.
well i do people never see from the perspective of the terrorists??remember we fought for freedom and then the Britishers called us terrorists or whatever?what leads to fight?they don’t kill without a reason do they??why do we never see it?is it because we are scared to accept the truth…i am not coming to say leave them free….someone needs to talk to them
Vishesh, do you mean to imply that the mastermind behind this is actually engaged in a freedom struggle? As for talking to him, I think the Indian government has been trying for a long time, but seems like our friendly neighboring country is not too keen on this guftagu. 🙂
amit
lol i understand what you mean…i was talking about the naxals and others…
i know it isn’t possible to keep everyone satisfied but we do need to keep some stability right??
and our friendly neighboring country and its friends are out to take our country out…i think someone needs to tell our worthy Pm that….
oh well we have 2 many things…guess something needs to be done….maybe an invasion??
The article below would interest the readers:
Why Terrorists aren’t soldiers
By Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala The New York Times
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
The line between soldier and civilian has long been central to the law of war. Today that line is being blurred in the United States in the struggle against transnational terrorists. Since 9/11 the Bush administration has sought to categorize members of Al Qaeda and other jihadists as “unlawful combatants” rather than treat them as criminals.
The courts are increasingly wary of this approach, and rightly so. In a stinging rebuke, this summer a U.S. federal appeals court in Virginia struck down the government’s indefinite detention of a civilian, Ali al-Marri, by the military. The case illustrates once again the pitfalls of the current approach.
Treating terrorists as combatants is a mistake for two reasons. First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. Under the law of war, military service members receive several privileges. They are permitted to kill the enemy and are immune from prosecution for doing so. They must, however, carefully distinguish between combatant and civilian and ensure that harm to civilians is limited.
Critics have rightly pointed out that traditional categories of combatant and civilian are muddled in a struggle against terrorists. In a traditional war, combatants and civilians are relatively easy to distinguish. The 9/11 hijackers, by contrast, dressed in ordinary clothes and hid their weapons. They acted not as citizens of Saudi Arabia, an ally of America, but as members of Al Qaeda, a shadowy transnational network. And their prime targets were innocent civilians.
By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we Americans accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state’s responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens. Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status.
If we are to defeat terrorists across the globe, we must do everything possible to deny legitimacy to their aims and means, and gain legitimacy for ourselves. As a result, terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement, then with more effective domestic security measures. Only as a last resort should we call on the military and label such activities “war.” The formula for defeating terrorism is well known and time-proven.
Labeling terrorists as combatants also leads to this paradox: While the deliberate killing of civilians is never permitted in war, it is legal to target a military installation or asset. Thus the attack by Al Qaeda on the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000 would be allowed, as well as attacks on command centers like the Pentagon. For all these reasons, the more appropriate designation for terrorists is not “unlawful combatant” but the one long used by America: criminal.
The second major problem with the approach of the Bush administration is that it endangers U.S. political traditions and the country’s commitment to liberty, and further damages America’s legitimacy in the eyes of others.
A great danger in treating operatives for Al Qaeda as combatants is precisely that its members are not easily distinguished from the population at large. The government wields frightening power when it can designate who is, and who is not, subject to indefinite military detention. The Marri case turned on this issue. Marri is a legal resident of the United States and a citizen of Qatar; the government contends that he is a sleeper agent of Al Qaeda. For the last four years he has been held as an enemy combatant at the Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina.
The federal court held that while the government can arrest and convict civilians, under current law the military cannot seize and detain Marri. Nor would it necessarily be constitutional to do so, even if Congress expressly authorized the military detention of civilians. At the core of the court’s reasoning is the belief that civilians and combatants are distinct. Had Ali al-Marri fought for an enemy nation, military detention would clearly be proper. But because he is accused of being a member of Al Qaeda, and is a citizen of a friendly nation, he should not be treated as a warrior.
Cases like this illustrate that in the years since 9/11, the Bush administration’s approach to terrorism has created more problems than it has solved. We need to recognize that terrorists, while dangerous, are more like modern-day pirates than warriors. They ought to be pursued, tried and convicted in the courts. At the extreme, yes, military force may be required. But the terrorists themselves are not “combatants.” They are merely criminals, albeit criminals of an especially heinous type, and that label suggests the appropriate venue for dealing with the threats they pose.
America trains soldiers to respect the line between combatant and civilian. U.S. political leaders must also respect this distinction, lest we unwittingly endanger the values for which America is fighting, and further compromise the efforts to strengthen security.
Wesley K. Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO, is a fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles. Kal Raustiala is a law professor and the director of the Burkle Center.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/08/opinion/edclark.php
The Indian conviction rate is low because we are a ‘secular’ country and our intelligence agencies are not allowed to target the suspect, who happen to be Muslims, unfortunately. After the Mumbai bomb blasts, our supreme leader Gandhi intervened and warned the Mumbai police to take it easy while investigating the blasts. The result was obvious.
u forgot 2 points
one is callous politicians worried upon their own security rather than that of their citizens
does that remind u of another post of urs
on the no of police per civilian …
the other is poor infrastructure and chalta hai attitude
the train blasts were as much due to a callous rail minister who doesnt care if the load per train is dense super dense or world record dense …as due to terrorists and appeasement.
In such a huge country with over 1 billion population suspected terrorists can easily slip through the net. I think terrorism of ALL types need to be handled far more strictly, without trying to damage community relations. The rise of anti Muslim sentiment in the West is often counter-argued by governments by urging Muslims to do take more action within their communities. Muslim citizens have often been accused of not condemning terrorism enough in the UK, especially with the crackdown of various terror suspects across the country and the London bombings two years ago.
Secularism is one of the crowning glories of India, and it’s always sad to hear of communal violence and religious tensions among communities! While we should respect all religions and faiths, that shouldn’t be any excuse to not act in times of high security threats. I feel the Indian government are somehow being too P.C. for their own good.
Secularism is one of the crowning glories of India
Nil, in theory or in practice? 😉
Also add to the equation nukes on both sides of the border, and suddenly that difficult calculus problem in first year college, by comparison, seems a lot easier. 🙂
Nice article Nita. I think all points seem valid although some have major collateral damage and risks e.g. more aggressive militarily like US/Israel – say a military adventure info Pak for terrorism (like what Israel did in Lebanon although the conflict there has deeper roots) would be disastrous.
US has definitely shown the world a new way – “not cow-down” approach to terrorism that did not exist before. This perhaps was because of the scale of a single event but nevertheless they took it way way more seriously than other countries have. It is a bold and indeed admirable stance. India can indeed benefit by taking a harder stance to terrorism – but maybe not as trigger-happy as US can be 🙂
It is interesting and appalling to note that nowhere in your 11 reasons of why our country is suffering so much from terrorism, “Islamic fundamentalism” doesn’t figure anywhere, nor do the comments so far.
You can continue to focus on the nature of our impotent reactions, but until you identify the root cause, the nature or extent of your reactions is immaterial and is always going to be impotent.
Sudhir, thanks for the info. 🙂
Prax, yes that can be the 12th point! An insufficient number of policemen.
Nil, yeah I agree. We are huge country and sort of bumbling through it all! It might interest you to know muslim organisations in india routinely speak out against terrorism, and they complain they are not given enough publicity when they do. Why, just yesterday, about 4-5 organations openly attacked Osama and his policies by saying that it has nothing to do either with India or with Islam. they said it on live tv.
Arunk, I agree that being trigger happy will be do more damage than good!
Mahendra, even if one agrees with your theory of Islamic fundamentalism I don’t see this in India. In India these incidents have happened due to feelings of revenge. I wonder if you have seen Black Friday. But even other confessions etc from terrorists caught in India have revealed that they did it out of feelings of revenge and hatred…in Tiger Memon’s case, (he was the mastemind in the mumbai blasts) it was rage because his shop had been attacked in riots! some of the terrorosists took part because of hatred because of babri masjid and godhra.
In fact there are articles which will tell you that Islamic fundamentalism has not taken root in India and the reasons for that. even hindus when they attack muslims in mobs do it out of hatred, not because of idealogy. only babri masjid attack was due to hindu idealogy but it is an isolated instance and no one got hurt – at the time at least! the riots in gujarat were not because of hindu idealogy for example, they were due to feelings of revenge after a train got burnt with hindu pilgirms in it.
Nita,
I completely agree with all of your 11 reasons (and a nice way to refer to them as worms from a can!). But I don’t accept that fundamentalist Islamic jihadi terrorism is not involved in terrorism in India.
The first link your point #1 about intelligence not being sufficient says: “over the past few years India’s radical Islamist groups have begun to flirt with the concept of transnational jihadism as embraced by Al Qaeda.”
Osama and Zawahiri have started making open threats against India is their audio/video messages, talking about a “Crusader-Zionist-Hindu conspiracy against the Muslims.”
KSM, an alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks has confessed that he was involved in a plot to blow up the Israeli embassy in India.
I have seen Black Friday and agree that there is a lot of terrorism in India that is not the result of fundamentalist jihadis. That doesn’t mean it is not already an influencing factor in some other instances.
I also agree that Islamic fundamentalism may not have taken root in India. That’s the distinguishing characteristic of this kind of terrorism – it doesn’t have to take root in the area it targets. British Islamic fundamentalists were not responsible for the London bombings, they may’ve been from anywhere else in the world. Once you become a jihadi, you get the right to kill anyone anywhere in the world.
Well, I think the trend has changed. Certain newspapers might feel that way, but when I quote from a source it is simply authenticate the part I am writing about, not necessarily the whole article. I want to make that very clear as you had brought up this point in an earlier post. I only reference to authenticate the point I am making…no the author’s whole article.
In my view Indian Muslims are quite disgusted with the Al Qaeda and its politics. Yes, I firmly believe this. In fact today I was amazed to read that even in Pakistan people (except those in NW Pakistan) have revolted against Osama’s latest edict. From blogs also I understand that the Pakistanis are fed up with Afghani interference.
You said that Islamic fundamentalism in other parts of the world as causing terror in India and the world. Well, on this subject I think you know my views! But okay let me mention it here too.
There are many complex causes of terrorism, and in my view evil people use religion for their own evil ends. True, they might be able to incite a certain section of the people, but these people usually are a dissatisfied lot, which brings into play other reasons. Also I feel that if someone takes part in a terror attack he feels more inclined to tell people about some idealogical reason.
In India I don’t think people do it for idealogical reasons anyway.
An interesting parallel is during the cold war…there were a lot of traitors and some were doing it for idealogical reasons and some for money. Even those who did it for money pretended to be doing it for idealogical reasons…to make themselves look better in the eyes of others.
so while some people might do it partly because of misguided notions about their religion, religion is the root cause only in some cases. In fact, Osama and company who are remote controlling this terror are not those who believe the i-am-doing-it-for-religion thing. they are far too clever.
So overall I believe that politically unstable nations are what produce such people. That is the root cause, if there is a root cause! Its the reason why these things grow out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Turkey. Also education and a liberal attitude matters. so many factors and its such a deep deep subject that we can argue long on this Mahendra, but well, this is what I believe.
nita
i dont think rajiv gandhi was a terror act
it was a revenge assasination
madni is the south indian terrorist
i think mahendra stated the obvious
why do they only have so much hate ?
plus they detest hindus and consider them dhimmis inferior to islam and also lcrave the rule of islam over the subcontinent plus who gave them the weapons and rdx ?
//In my view Indian Muslims are quite disgusted with the Al Qaeda and its politics//
this is plain naivity —-id say a whole sum majority still love Laden and likes – will they take up the gun – id say no
only a minority having secure jobs and some intelligence dont like him.
//From blogs also I understand that the Pakistanis are fed up with Afghani interference.??
i always thought it was the other way round
can u substantiate this statement ?
//i-am-doing-it-for-religion thing. they are far too clever.??
can u substantiate this statement ?
osamas primary intention is to get us forces and the bin saud family out of power in saudi arabia and create a pan islamic caliphat — doesnt that come under religion
plus bin laden has substantial wealth – he is indoctrinated to wahabism
Prax, no I am afraid I cannot substantiate it. It is my opinion only. I read a fair amount of blogs and it will be difficult indeed to find out what I read where! but overall, yes, it is my opinion and I do think you are wrong!
In fact I am sure you are wrong…but never mind. I guess it will be difficult to find proof that most Indian Muslims hate Al Quaeda, but wait, I remember a world-wide survey which says that only 7 percent of muslims worldwide support al quaeda and this is about the world. If it is about India, I would say…ummm…1 percent? Maybe that is too much!
and prax my friend you yoruself gave me osama’s real intention….! that pan islamic state he wants, comes under a political ambition!
What worries me is that intelligent people in this country believe this and its saddening, very very saddening. I wish I could do something to convince you, but I guess I can’t. the evidence to my mind is everywhere….you can find the truth if you have muslim friends, read muslim blogs, read surveys about muslims feelings, read news items about muslims denouncing violence…but finally one sees what wants to see. I guess you can say that about me too…but I think I see the reality. 🙂
p.s. even people who want revenge can create terror.
These are links which could be of interest to anyone who believes that Islamic fundamentalism is the root of terrorism or that Muslims support violence across the world.
This first link is from as far back as 2005, the time when Muslims started to realize that Osama talks bullshit.
A recent, 2007 poll also confirms this fact, that only 7 percent of those surveyed justified the attacks on 9/11. Let me quote from this poll:
well lets agree to disagree 😉
blogs dont mean much if u note that this is a relatively new medium and tell me how many muslims blog or read blogs..plus its not necessary that people will give frank opinions in a poll or survey
If majority muslims were very secular why do they still ghetto vote according to fatwas from mosques? i prefer going to bylanes of bhindi bazaar and m ali road and listening to people talk among themselves or mullas preach to 3/4 yr olds in some street madrassa at musafirkhana.
i wasnt talking abt quaeda and activities i was talkg abt laden being glorified and re veered. this stems more from anti americanism or u can say anti bushism -than love for laden – thats why i said most wont take to arms …
in devout -by the book islam the state cant be differentialted from the religion be it osama or AIMPLB they still prefer control over the population.
even people who want revenge can create terror.
true but then the govt should be truely secular and legal system should work and people given death sentence should be punished without fear of vote slide …
there is always the yang to counter the ying
the sad thing is that many muslims only education is that at a madrassa so their perspective is very limited and restricted to the preachings of mullahs
yes many are realising the folly in following likes of laden
and also many educated people are modernizing too as i observed in the city mall at mumbai central.
The current ruling party since independence found convenience in dealing with the mullah bunch just like us found it convenient to deal with the pak generals and thus there is no real reform in muslim law in india in comparison even to malaysia
finally as a kashmiri pandit hotel manager in ladakh once described to me about muslims
he said they are great individuals but once in a mosque after listening to preaching they change to something else..
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/213990.html
Prax, I agree with that article entirely! Like Tavleen Singh, I too grew up in an environment surrounded by people of different religions. In my class at school there were muslims, parsess, jains, christians etc. in fact my best friend at school was/is a muslim, a friend I have not lost touch with even though she lives in America. That is precisely what I am saying, muslims are just like us, no different! I feel sad if today’s muslims are growing up separetely, really sad. I was very very lucky. Today I have friends of all religions and I do not think of them by their religion at all.
and btw, blogs are people, thats all. each blog is a person and that article which you referenced was an opinon by one columnist, not a researched article, but an opinion which are just what blogs are all about. That is why I like to read blogs, its like talking to a person and on the internet one tends to get a wider circle and i feel it broadens one’s mind.
i am not disagreeing with you about our secular system not working…indeed a lot needs to be done.
and true polls have a limited value, but they can guide us a little…specially if one is a person without Muslim friends. I for one believed the poll, because I have muslims friends and I am not talking of those only on the internet.
ur muslim friend like some of mine are sadly in minority
wp gives excellent us news
plus trusting all that is said abt india via washington post is nothin less than harikeri , first most of their journos are from hindu ,or may i say chindu, and dont have much clue abt the ground situation here
i still do the trips sometimes – gives me a good perspective
For terrorism death we should not only blame to Government but also to the system we follow in our society. It is the duty of every single citizen to be aware about little things in his/her day to day life and raise the alarm whenever he / she something wrong and on government part they should make it most convenient that no body feels fear in raising alarm against wrong.
sandeep
Yes absolutely, citizens should not be harassed if they help the police or the govt! But today this is what happens! – Nita