Similar brave words were used in the two Houses of Parliament after Parliament House was chosen by Pak-trained terrorists to strike at the sovereignty of the Indian Republic on December 13 last year. In a stern diplomatic offensive against Pakistan, India deployed its armed forces across the borders with Pakistan. India recalled its envoy from Islamabad and stopped the use of air space by Pakistan even for civil aviation. However soon every politician had mentally adjusted to the forces remaining deployed at the border without exchanging a bullet for six months or without any overt activity. Only Union Ministers occasionally reminded the nation, through their assertive statements, that the forces would remain deployed at the borders unless Pakistan took decisive action against the terrorist outfits. The evidence of decisive action by Pakistan would be in handing over the twenty terrorists that India had named in its submitted list, as wanted for trial for acts of terrorism in India. But other politicians got busy in their normal political activities. No one realised that the period of inactivity was only indication that yet another incident was round the corner.

The terrorists had failed to provoke India to take a decisive strike against Pakistan even after they had the audacity to strike at the very symbol of Indian sovereignty. The terrorists’ objective is to provoke a war between India and Pakistan so that they could get possession of the defeated Pakistan with General Pervez Musharraf languishing in some hole. Only then they unfold their dream of a full-scale jehad against India. With their control over the nuclear arsenal possessed by Pakistan, they could pose a real threat not only to India and but would also hold the world to ransom.

General Musharraf might have managed to win a referendum with an overwhelming support that has installed him as the head of the state in Pakistan for the next five years but he is not a full command of the situation in Pakistan because the ISI continues to be a parallel centre of power in Pakistan. It continues to train and support the jehadis in training camps across the Line of Control between the two neighbours. The kidnapping and murder of the American media person Daniel Pearl in January this year and also blowing up of a bus carrying French engineers in Karachi, who were working on the Pakistani submarine project were clear indication that Musharraf was not in command of the situation nor was he in a position to realise the dream that he had unfolded in his famous address to the world on January 12 this year when he had promised to modernise the bigoted Pakistani through improvement in education in madrasas in Pakistan. Even in the midst of the war drums that were being beaten by politicians of different hues and colours, the moot question that India has to address is whether provocative action would be to the ultimate benefit of India. Probably the United States of America is building up pressure on India to desist from any direct action only because the U.S.A. administration sees a greater danger in weakening of General Musharraf. It might fear that weakening of the administration in Pakistan would be an invitation to the Taliban forces to move over to Pakistan and then continue their war against the world. Others argue that yesterday’s bad guy, General Musharraf, had become a hero in the eyes of the U.S.A. only because the U.S.A. administration perceives a danger in his removal. However, India also has to consider that if it did not take some concrete and direct action, it would only encourage the terrorists to come for yet another strike for no action by India would merely show that India was too weak and soft a nation.

Yet military action is no remedy for eradication of terrorism. The United States of America and Britain had, with full the approval of the United Nations and other nations, used their military might against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan for ending terrorism. Yet it has not succeeded in ending terrorism nor had it succeeded in the original purpose of nabbing the exiled Arabian millionaire Osama bin Laden or his much-hated organisation Al Quaeda. Osama bin Laden has disappeared without leaving a trace. Even the Taliban leaders have succeeded in vanishing without a trace. The military action ended only in the installation of a U.S.A. friendly regime in Afghanistan. But the U.S.A. has not been able to trace the entire Taliban cabinet or Osama bin Laden. Even the Royal Marines who carried out a month-long combing operation could not trace the vanished soldiers of the Taliban. It was obvious that they have found a safe haven. It is also apparent that such a safe haven could only be in the tribal region of Pakistan but the U.S.A. is not in a position to carry out a combing operation inside Pakistan. General Musharraf has probably convinced them that any such operation would be a sure exit for him. The pestilence of terrorism cannot end by knee-jerk reactions nor can it end if the victim state goes to sleep after each incident of terrorism. The diplomatic offensive that India had launched against Pakistan after December 13 has not proved to be an effective solution to encourage General Musharraf to strike heavily against the terrorist outfits that were active in their jehad against India. In fact, General Musharraf was obviously playing a double game. He had taken action against the groups that were named by the U.S.A. but he has not moved even an inch against the groups that were active against India. His stance on Kashmir shows no change till yesterday. He has again reiterated that Pakistan would continue to provide diplomatic and moral support to the people of Kashmir who were engaged in a struggle for freedom. As a senior official of Pakistan said no one in the world was buying the theory that terrorism in Kashmir was a freedom struggle. Yet a totally weakened or undemocratic Pakistan is not a solution for India. Only a democratic and modernised Pakistan can provide some respite from terrorism. Thus the solution still remains within Pakistan and with the people and rulers of Pakistan. India would have to find a way to put pressure on General Musharraf to take concrete action to dismantle the terrorist camps inside Pakistan that have begun to turn against Pakistan itself as the Karachi bus bomb clearly indicates. India needs to convince the U.S.A that it would be in the larger interest of the world if General were forced to act decisively.

The anger displayed in the two Houses of Parliament during the eight -hour debate in each House merely indicated that it was against the attack in Jammu. The whole nation had gone to sleep for five months after having passed a similar resolution at the end of a long debate on the attack of December 13 last year. India has now again woken up to retaliatory frenzy in a reaction to an episode instead of discussing the comprehensive situation of national security. There was no need to seek a consensus or even have a unanimous resolution to condemn the act of terrorism. No one in this country disagrees that terrorism is a cancer that needs to be stamped out. But it cannot be treated episodically. Each episode was only with a purpose of provoking the nation into action of a kind that was the desired by the terrorists. But if the State fell prey to their provocation, it would be only responding to what the terrorists want. Can India afford to act as a response to what the terrorists want or should India have a long-term and effective strategy to deal with the situation instead of a knee-jerk reaction and response to every incident of terrorist violence? India has to display its anger and indignation against the dastardly act of terrorism. It cannot remain silent or inactive. Yet the options for action are limited with doubts about their efficacy.

In his heart, every politician knows that India’s options were limited to remaining awake all the time and taking preventive measures against yet another strike by the terrorists in a different part of the country. Words of war sound very sweet to some ears. But the cost of translating these words of war into action is very heavy and leaves a lasting impact on the psyche and also on the economy of the nation. The suggested option of the limited war with selective strikes at the camps inside Pakistan was out the of hands of India.

The time taken to come to a decision and open debate over such an option would certainly have put Pakistan on the alert and prepared to make India pay a bloody price. The Home Ministry assures us through the Pioneer that there were 75 training camps spread across the Line of Control inside Pakistan where 3000 to 4000 terrorists including those who have fled from Afghanistan were holed up. They can be the targets as the U.S.A and Britain had made the hideout of Osama bin Laden as the main target. However, the American Air Force might was not able to destroy the terrorists.

It destroyed merely the tents and structures that were used by the terrorists of Al Quaeda. Does India have such a might to sustain air strikes for such a long duration and deep inside enemy territory? How long can India sustain the air strikes is a question that needs to be answered before India embarks on such a serious adventure. The nation is now all dressed up to go somewhere. The war drums are being beaten. The Vajpayee government has been given carte blanche for suitable action. The nation has been told that it would be taken into confidence on action in due course of time.