The Yale Globalist - The Emperor's New Clothes

The Emperor's New Clothes
Despite the appearance of new security measures, India may not be any safer than before.

Saturday, 04 April 2009 | Kersi Shroff

The November 26 terrorist attacks in Mumbai were “India’s 9/11,” proclaimed many in the Indian media. They were indeed horrific: a series of 10 coordinated attacks on targets across the city, from tourist hangouts to a Jewish center to a hospital for women and children. But whereas September 11 led to the creation of a new cabinet-level department and a color-coded terrorist threat warning system—not to mention two wars—shockingly little has changed in India following its worst outbreak of terrorism in recent years. The country has been the target of terrorist violence many times before, and Indian citizens—including myself— thought that this year, the government might finally act effectively to prevent future strikes. Those hopes have largely been dashed by the government’s inept response. Private locations like elite hotels and shopping malls have attempted to fortify themselves, with limited effectiveness. despite some surface changes, security and intelligence in India is still pitifully soft.

The November attacks exposed major lapses on the part of India’s security establishment. The city’s policemen, most poorly trained and often equipped with only a lathi (a long baton), were incapable of making progress against the attackers for hours after the conflict began. India’s elite National Security Guard commando force had to be flown from New delhi, over 1,000 kilometers away, and driven from the airport in public buses to arrive at 7 a.m. the following morning. It took them over 60 hours to end the terror inflicted by only 10 assailants.

Indian citizens were shocked by the state of India’s emergency infrastructure and appalled at the lackadaisical response of both state and central government officials. India’s elite ended years of political isolation to demand that the government provide proper protection. An explicit hope was voiced through the multitude of 24-hour news channels that India would, like the United States, transform its security apparatus.

Following the attacks, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced the formation of a new unified national intelligence agency, as well as heavy investments towards India’s antiterrorism forces and coastal defense. Security was stepped up at public places under both private and government ownership. But in line with the Indian government’s penchant for symbolism, many of the increased measures seemed to be aimed more at creating an appearance of security than at preventing further attacks. While x-ray machines now stand at the entrance of several crowded public areas, they are often unmanned or dysfunctional. When I returned home in december, a marketplace in South delhi that was attacked as recently as September remained completely unguarded. Checkpoints across roads made delhi’s gridlock even more unbearable— and nothing seems to be checked.

With a souring economy and a massive decline in tourism after the Mumbai attacks, owners of private hospitality spaces are taking every measure to protect their properties. All vehicles entering malls or five- star hotels are examined. Many hotels have started screening baggage and placing plainclothes security personnel at strategic locations inside the premises. But unlike in government-run public spaces, they make an effort to minimize inconvenience to customers without compromising effectiveness. Car checks are conducted by two or three well-positioned guards at the entrance to prevent road blockage.

Nevertheless, private security is beset by many of the same problems facing the public sector. As Ajai Sahni of the Institute for Conflict Management in delhi commented, “Most of the mushrooming private security agencies are run by former policemen who were not particularly effective against terrorists while in service and a handful of Army officers whose military combat skills are no use against urban terrorism.” Moreover, while investing in highly expensive and sophisticated equipment, the private agencies often hire out what he called “virtually untrained and ineffective guards.”

Serious counterterrorism requires a paradigm shift in India’s security strategy. Makeshift measures following terror attacks might create the illusion of efficacy, but they are exposed by the unprecedented frequency of terror attacks in India. While men scurrying around with metal detectors might make travelers and residents feel more secure, nothing would increase public confidence like a year without a terrorist attack. That’s something that India seems far from delivering.

Kersi Shroff is a senior Economics and Political Science double major in Branford College.

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites