India’s internal security situation has been described as "extremely grave and war-like" by Deputy Prime Minister L. K. Advani, who blames two neighbouring countries for trying to destabilise it. He has focussed attention on the scourge of terrorism which afflicts most of South Asia, and has caused colossal economic damage as well. During his visits to France and Qatar, he got a sympathetic hearing from their leaders to his complaint against cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan and was assured of the support of the international community in combating it, despite the focus of attention having shifted to Iraq.

In addition to Pakistan, India has blamed the government of Bangladesh also of harbouring ill-will towards the country and permitting Islamabad’s intelligence agencies to expand the terrorist network operating out of Dhaka. Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters, who were pushed out of Afghanistan, have been safely ferried to Bangladesh by Pakistani agencies and helped to establish new bases for exporting Islamic fundamentalism to other countries. Advani, however, makes a distinction between cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan and that from eastern neighbours, who support indigenous movements by giving arms and asylum to secessionists operating in the North-East. Even though he has not spelt out any new strategy to deal with the problem in an effective manner, Advani insists that, even though a democracy, India need not be "a soft state".

Though insurgency and terrorism are several decades old, the Government cannot be credited with any coherent thinking in tackling it. If the intention is to wean away misguided elements in society, who are committing violence under foreign instigation and support, from the wrong path, then there should be no hesitation in engaging them in dialogue. For the Prime Minister himself to meet rebel Naga leaders several times in other countries was, perhaps, not the right thing to do. But having said that, one cannot but appreciate the effort in calling the NSCN (I-M) leaders to India and holding substantive discussions with them at the political and other levels. New Delhi ought to have made it possible for the two leaders to stay on in India for further talks later, instead of letting them go abroad, where they are certain to be influenced by forces inimical to India to adopt a hard-line course. However much the NSCN leaders might insist that they are raising funds from the local population to keep the insurgency going, there is little doubt that they receive considerable foreign support, financial, as well as, material, in the form of arms and provisions, in addition to safe haven.

The dialogue approach should be adopted also in the case of other secessionist groups such as ULFA, National Democratic Front of Bodoland, All Bodo Students Union, People’s War Group and Maoist insurgents as well as the Hurriyat Conference, even if it has become Pakistan’s mouthpiece. Suspension of Maulvi Farooq’s passport for one month will not permanently immobilise him, because the Government has previously allowed him to go abroad for months, even for attending OIC meetings, together with other Hurriyat leaders, to spit venom against India. Created and sustained by Pakistan, the Hurriyat Conference cannot be expected to turn pro-India suddenly and do New Delhi’s bidding. They are aware of the changed political climate in Jammu and Kashmir and should, therefore, show a willingness to talk with representatives of the Government of India. They were engaged, very perfunctorily, by K. C. Pant and, more recently, by the non-official Kashmir Committee, but both failed to persuade them to take part in the Assembly election.

Kashmir remains the biggest internal security problem for India. The Hurriyat insisting on a tripartite dialogue involving Pakistan should not come in the way of engaging them and making them realise the folly of pursuing a secessionist agenda that has brought colossal misery to the people of the State. It needs persistent efforts by an interlocutor like K. Padmanabhaiah to establish contact with the militant groups irrespective of where their inspiration comes from. Chief Minister Mufti Sayeed has a point against relying solely on military methods to tackle insurgency in Kashmir and is in favour of applying the healing touch to wean the people from the influence of religious fanatics, financed and sustained by Pakistan. The Hurriyat is already finding the ground slipping from under its feet and it may soon become totally irrelevant if it surrenders the stage to Pakistan-backed terrorists.

India is part of the vast empire of terrorism stretching across South-east Asia. No doubt, external forces have played their part in nurturing terrorism by supporting fundamentalist and dictatorial military regimes in Pakistan and elsewhere and organising terrorist forces to achieve short-term political objectives such as in Afghanistan. The manner in which religious fundamentalism, supported by violence, was promoted by these powers for their questionable aims, has transformed the whole of Afghanistan and Pakistan into a vast nursery of terrorism despite the presence of U. S. troops. Some South Asian countries have aided, abetted and encouraged terrorism in neighbouring States making international borders hot with terrorist activity. Terrorist groups operating in one country have established strong links with ideologically similar groups operating in a neighbouring country.

No doubt, terrorism sponsorship to achieve territorial gains or disrupt internal order in a country must be stoutly resisted by all means, including military, but every effort should be made to bring home-grown terrorists into the mainstream democratic process. At the same time, the countries involved must not pursue chauvinistic and obscurantist political agendas for short-term electoral or other gains as that will not help in effectively fighting terrorism or fundamentalism which forms its basis. Unfortunately for India, it has to fight terrorism originating from the east as well as the west and the governments of both Pakistan and Bangladesh keep denying any official hand in it. Even though India has faced terrorism sponsored by Islamabad for over a decade, it is quite recently that this scourge has started from Bangladesh, whose government does not seem to have any control over Pakistan’s covert and overt activities in that
country.

Bangladesh has a new regime, some of whose components like the Jamaat-i-Islami are openly pro-Taliban and fundamentalist and anti-India. After Pakistan President Gen. Musharraf’s Dhaka visit last year, the activities of fundamentalist and terrorist organisations have increased. A senior officer of Gen. Musharraf’s entourage also met ULFA leaders in Dhaka and promised them more help, financial and material, to keep up the insurgency. ULFA also commands the support of the Kamtapur Liberation Organisation, which operates near Chicken Neck, a narrow corridor that links eastern India to the heartland.

The fact that Bangladesh has become a hotbed of terrorists waging war against India has been brought out in the Western media as well, together with the fact that a section of Bangladeshi intelligence is maintaining close links with Pakistan’s ISI. Several hundred Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters were facilitated to enter Bangladesh through the Chittagong harbour last year. Corroboration has been obtained from Cairo, Jakarta, Manila and Western capitals for reports that the emergence of Osama Bin Laden’s fighters in Dhaka is merely the latest sign that Bangladesh’s more radical Islamic groups are now surfacing under the patronage of parties in the ruling coalition.