Zero tolerance & terrorism

By Wasbir Hussain

THE PRIME Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, may or may not be firmly in the saddle yet, but his National Democratic Alliance has made one significant declaration: that its Government would be guided by the principle of zero tolerance in its fight against terrorism. In a recent interview to a national news agency, Mr. Vajpayee said: ``Our immediate focus is on combating trans-border terrorism and terrorist violence in Jammu & Kashmir as also in other parts of the country, especially in the north-east. We have already declared that our Government will be guided by the principle of zero tolerance in our fight against terrorism.'' The Union Government's declaration that it would pursue a policy of zero tolerance while combating terrorism can have a deep impact in a geo-strategic region like the north-east, large parts of which are reeling under insurgency with the separatist rebels operating from both within and outside the country's borders.

Now, what is zero tolerance? Does it mean that the Centre would henceforth look, as much as possible, for military solutions to the insurgency problems in hot-spots such as the north-east or J&K? Has it given up hope of finding lasting solutions to problems of militancy through the process of negotiations? The answer to these two questions is certainly a big no.

India, in keeping with its democratic spirit, has held dialogue with outlawed insurgent groups such as the Mizo National Front and the Tripura National Volunteers and is now engaged in talks with the Isaac-Muivah faction of the banned National Socialist Council of Nagaland. Protracted negotiations led to the MNF giving up its demand for an independent Mizoram and the Mizo Accord was clinched in 1986. The TNV, too, agreed to a solution within the Indian Constitutional framework and signed an agreement in 1988.

The Naga peace efforts currently on are in an extremely fragile state, particularly after the recent bid on the life the of Nagaland Chief Minister, Mr. S. C. Jamir. Still, the peace process has not collapsed yet.

The Government of India had held dialogue with outlawed rebel groups earlier; it is engaged in talks now and has been saying time and again that its doors are always open for negotiations. Why the need then to declare a policy of, what the Prime Minister calls, zero tolerance? After all, it does give out confusing signals to the rebel leaders as well as peace-brokers in areas such as the north-east and smacks of double-speak on the Government's part.

No one is expecting the Government of India to give in to the demands for sovereign homelands made by sundry insurgent outfits. Similarly, no one is prepared to accept even talk of such a policy as zero tolerance as a means to tackle insurgency movements.

Talking about double-speak, the Home Minister, Mr. L. K. Advani, said, while participating recently in a special discussion in the Lok Sabha on internal security, with special reference to J&K and the north-east, that the Government was in favour of ending militancy in the country through negotiations within the Constitutional framework. Mr. Advani, at the same time, spoke about the zero tolerance policy. This, he said, means that the Government while being keen on evolving negotiated settlements to insurgency problems would not look for or entertain proposals for solutions which seek to put a premium on violence.

Mr. Advani is basically talking of a carrot-and-stick policy which has been in operation in insurgency theatres such as the north-east for long. By now, New Delhi's stand is known to everyone, particularly the militant groups: that it is ready to hold unconditional talks with them anywhere in the world without any third party mediation. Most importantly, everyone also knows that the Indian authorities would work for a solution strictly within the framework of the Constitution. Therefore, any rebel group entering into talks with the Government must be prepared to work out an agreement within the Constitutional framework.

This being the case, there is no point in talking of zero tolerance because one cannot even remotely think of a military solution to insurgency in the north-east, in the same way as the rebels cannot or should not hope to achieve a military victory over Indian forces some day.

Let us look at a common scenario in an insurgent-infested area in the north-east: the highly mobile rebels take shelter with the people in villages, carry out ambushes on security forces and other subversive activities in the nearby towns and then move on to their next destination, may be another village. After every such attack, security forces descend on the place and quickly engage themselves in what is known in counter-insurgency parlance as a cordon-and-search operation. Now, what do they get out of this? In most cases, nothing. It is a tricky situation because technically the villagers can be charged with aiding and abetting terrorism. But, one has to be practical and must realise that in most cases, the villagers provide the insurgents shelter and keep their mouths shut for fear alone and not because they support the cause of the militants. Here again, the Government simply cannot afford to pursue a zero tolerance policy. If it is to follow it strictly, excesses cannot be helped.

Coinage of a phrase like zero tolerance policy may be wrong but the Prime Minister's latest move to meet with the Chief Ministers and Governors of the north-eastern States in Shillong on January 21 to address the twin and most crucial issues of insurgency and development is praiseworthy. The Prime Minister is scheduled to personally preside over this meeting and this indicates that the Centre has made up its mind to move forward parallelly while dealing with the problems of insurgency and economic backwardness in the region.

A parallel approach is the only way to effectively tackle these two issues and break the vicious cycle of under-development leading to militancy and militancy leading to economic backwardness. Militancy in various forms is there to stay in the ethnically-diverse north-east and it would be futile for anyone to wait for insurgency to end before shifting the focus development.

Mr. Vajpayee's Government has started talking about things like a zero tolerance policy to stop looking at solutions or entertaining proposals for solutions which seek to put a premium on violence. One must remember here that most of the insurgency movements in the country, particularly in the north-east and in J&K, are separatist movements and are unlawful activities under the Indian Constitution, in terms of which secessionism is taboo. Such movements are bound to be violent. And if the Government decides to go ahead with its new hard line and were to adopt a bullet-for-bullet policy, insurgencies perhaps would never end in the country.

Already, such draconian laws as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, and the Disturbed Areas Act are in force in parts of the north-east, providing sweeping powers to security personnel engaged in counter-insurgency operations. In Assam, for instance, there is a unified headquarters of the Army, police and paramilitary forces for anti-insurgency operations. Anything harsher than these measures already existing will only limit the Government's options in extreme situations.

(The writer is Editor, The Northeast Daily, Guwahati.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Bungling that proved costly
Next     : A credulous claim