‘We shouldn’t be afraid of executing terrorists’

A 10-point plan of action, which includes sealing the country’s eastern border, is the way ahead, BJP General Secretary Arun Jaitley tells VIJAY SIMHA

Photo: Trilochan S Kalra

Why is India so often a target of terrorist attacks?
We have been targets for at least a decade before 9/11. Initially, we had the Maoist violence and the Punjab problem. The present phase of terrorism started with Pakistan. Pakistan realised that it was not able to defeat us in conventional warfare. Therefore, Pakistan abandoned conventional warfare, barring the brief Kargil war, and switched to cross-border terrorism.

Why is it getting worse?
In the last few years, there has been a structural change. Now we have Bangladesh, where terrorist training camps and modules have sprung up. Our border with Bangladesh is a soft border. This has made things worse. In addition to this, we are dealing with homegrown terrorists. Initially, these homegrown terrorists were providing logistics. Now they have become active themselves.

To what extent is the state responsible?
The state takes a kid glove approach towards terrorism. This helps create the impression that India is an easier target. It makes us look like a soft state. Even if the courts pass a sentence on terrorists, like in the case of Afzal Guru, we will not execute the sentence. We will repeal harsh laws, have easier bail provisions for terrorists, and term all arrests as unfair. This has created a political regime and a legal framework that is terrorist-friendly. India has become a huge radar for terrorism with its weak intelligence and weak political will. Consequently, the terrorists have the upper hand.

How has the recent political climate impacted our response to terrorism?
Historically, the Muslim League and the Communist parties have represented the subversive line. The Jana Sangh and the BJP represented the aggressive line, while the Congress took the centrist approach. Occasionally, under Indira Gandhi, the Congress competed with the BJP, and even overtook the BJP, in nationalism. From the times of Indira Gandhi, we have moved to VP Singh, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad, and Arjun Singh. From the secularism of the past, we have reached a position where secularism means having to lean in favour of antimajorityism. These four politicians particularly practice this. Broadly, Rajiv Gandhi never subscribed to this, barring the Shah Bano case. The Congress rank and file also did not subscribe to anti-majorityism. But under Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi, the Congress and the UPA has become a fellow traveller with Islamism and anti-majorityism. This is a perversion. They think this helps them to be perceived as more secular, especially in the possibility of forming votebanks. This journey from secularism to subversion has incentivised terrorism in India.

How must we respond?
First, strengthen intelligence. Second, seal our eastern border, like we did with the western border. Third, prevent infiltration from Bangladesh, and treat such infiltration as a security risk, not as a votebank. Fourth, make police investigation a core activity. Fifth, politicians like Lalu Prasad, Ram Vilas Paswan, and Mulayam Singh Yadav must stop making - pro-SIMI statements. Sixth, we must recognise that POTA is a secular law against terrorism. Seventh, we should not be afraid of executing terrorists, when they have been handed the death sentence. Eighth, human rights organisations must look at the broad picture and not act as the overground face of the underground. Ninth, we must not rationalise terrorism. There should be no root cause theory. Just nip it in the bud. Tenth, have a system that allows redressal. Be fair but tough.