DESPERATE TIMES DON'T ALWAYS CALL FOR DESPERATE MEASURES!

BY: DEEKSHA BHARDWAJ

After the terrorist attack of 26th November in Mumbai, the mood and rhetoric in India is reminiscent to that of the U.S after 9/11. As in the U.S then, outraged Indians swear never again. The phrase ‘War on terror’ invented in the U.S after 9/11, is now being widely used in India. This is a dangerous militaristic mood. It led the U.S into the disastorous invasion of Iraq. Let it not lead India into the same sort of misadventure.

Americans reportedly called 9/11 another Pearl Habour and the analogy sparked a determination to respond with guns and bombs. Many Indians while sympathizing with the U.S pointed out that 6,000 people feared dead wasn’t a huge number when compared with 50,000 killed over a decade in Kashmir. The U.S was apparently suffering from a small dose of Islamic terrorism that has long since wrecked Kashmir. The reaction was hugely preposterous considering that these were the same people who had never equated Kashmiri terrorism with war and always told India to be calm and not bomb terrorist training camps in Pak. But when they got a taste of it at home they went ballistic, declared it war with terrorism and vowed to kill all those ‘bad’ guys.

Cooler heads pointed out that ‘The War on Terror’ was a meaningless phrase. Terror is simply a tactic used by certain groups, and you cannot wage a war against a tactic. You can declare war on an enemy country but not on an NGO – which is what terrorists exactly are. When terrorism arises from an ideology or set of grievances, imaginary or otherwise, killing a bunch of ideologues may simply deepen those grievances and create several more terrorists. There was no Al-Qaeda before U.S’s alleged ‘War on Terror’ but the invasion created large Al-Qaeda cadres which have now been cut to size but remain a festering sore.

Indians who accused U.S of over-reacting to 9/11 are now themselves following pursuit. The media hyped it as ‘The War on Mumbai’, 'War on India’, ‘War on Terror’ etcetera, etcetera. Journalists and politicians who cautioned against jingoism in U.S after 9/11 are fanning it today in India.

Even the normally so-called ‘cool headed’ people are so agitated that they want to drop grenades on Pak. After the Iraqi war haven’t we learned that bombing cannot eradicate terrorism or the extremist mind set? All our invasion will result in is a Pakistani military response which will strengthen the hands of those Pakistani’s who support terrorism. It will constitute to yet another grievance that shall be exploited by the extremists. Let us not repeat the errors of President Bush.

Angry Indians say action should be taken. True but the action has to be patient diplomacy and international pressure which shall bear fruit though slowly but effectively. Outraged citizens do not want to be told to take it easy and respond to terrorism with diplomacy. Alas! Some problems do not have quick and effective military solutions. Lets not forget Britain had to live with Irish terrorism for almost a century.

Let us in such times of trouble avoid Bush speak and recall the old prayer "Lord, grant me serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change things I can and wisdom to know the difference."

I know friends they say that desperate times call for desperate measures but amidst all this chaos let us not forget how much we have to lose if we follow the path of violence. Besides threatening countless innocent lives we also pose the risk of creating stronger and more determined terrorists. Bombing Pak seems to be the most feasible solution to most of us but believe me it isn't. It is on this note that I end my article leaving the decision up to you so as to decide which is going to be the more effective solution - a THIRD WORLD WAR which shall not only risk a thousand lives, 90% of them harmless but shall also cause significant damage to our resources or PATIENT DIPLOMACY which shall set India as an asset to the whole world. I chose the latter which one will you pick?