The Daily Observer

India has again been hit by a cowardly act of terrorism. The record of the present Manmohan Singh UPA government on internal security is pathetic, poor and shameful. Terrorists have been deliberately targeting cities  of economic and cultural importance and every time a terrorist act occurs, be it the Mumbai train  blasts in 2006 or the Delhi market blasts in 2005 or the  Hyderabad blasts in 2007, the response of India’s Prime Minister and Home Minister is the same…words of condemnation followed by inaction. No attempt to rally the nation behind any innovative  anti-terror steps. No attempt to explain how terrorism not only causes  human suffering, not only causes children to lose their parents and wives to lose their husbands and friends to lose each other, but how random acts of terrorism are actually an attempt to destroy the very concept of India as a successful, internally diverse civilization on the path of economic progress. If the UPA government had spent half its time worrying about India’s security as it spends on pathetic pandering to minorities (Manmohan’s statement that Muslims  have the first right on national resources is a case in point), maybe India would not have suffered so many terrorist attacks in the past few years.

The UPA government’s record can be contrasted with both the previous NDA government’s record on internal security. The NDA government not only had a firm ideological position on terror, it  had the smarts and vision to come  up with out-of the box initiatives…Operation Parakram in response to the attack on Parliament is a case in point. Yes, some incidents did occur but they were followed by immediate action or subsequent legislation or strenghtening of the internal security apparatus. At least the country and the rest of the world had a sense that the government had some concern about terrorism. The UPA government does not indicate in any way that it sees terrorism as a problem. Except for probably AK Antony, the current Defence Minister, none of the cabinet ministers has any record, in terms of action or public political positions, of being concerned about internal security. The defacto head of government, Sonia Gandhi, seems to think that she should be perceived as being hard on terror just because her mother-in-law and husband were victims of terrorism. The UPA made a symbolic statement by making Pratiba Patil, a person with alleged involvement in  a criminal case, as President , and Hamid Ansari, a bleeding heart pseudo-secular "intellectual" as vice-president. The NDA made a statement by making Abdul Kalam, a brilliant engineer who has done a lot through his work to make India powerful and respected country in military terms. Even by its largely symbolic political appointments, the UPA has shown its disregard for national security and emboldened anti-India terror groups.

Yossarin in offstumped has an interesting point -Whereas in the80’s and 90’s terrorist attacks were part of larger secessionist or political movements, today they are random and with the sole intent of weakening India rather than achieving a specific political goal.

The people  of Jaipur, just like the people of Mumbai in 2006, should be admired for not allowing such a dastardly act to blow  into a communal conflagration. But if terrorist attacks keep on continuing, there is a danger to the social fabric of the country. There is also the danger that continued inaction by this government could result in a new government taking over whose desire to prove its anti-terrorist credentials results in actions that are more symbolic than effective and cause harm to basic democratic values and civil liberties.