Why Terrorism and National Security will never be an election issue in India?

Recently we have seen current Gujarat Chief minister raising some security issues in public speeches as a part of his campaign against the incumbent congress such as issues like border incursions by China and Pakistan then the subsequent killing and beheading of Indian soldiers. We are still not sure if it will be an election issue. Can any political leader be sure that by campaigning on issues of national security and terrorism he can change the voting behavior of people in a country like India? We must admit that India is a divided house on different fronts linguistically, politically, economically not to mention the caste word though there is some kind of loose knit of cultural unity but that alone is not a reason to celebrate.

Why border incursions by Pakistan and China in one part of the country are not taken seriously in the other parts of country or when Maoists kill people why people do not react at all in front of ballot? Why ruling government, political leaders are not held responsible for their inefficiency? Why people do not punish the rulers for their inaction when elections ensue? This is a complex question. The examining of this issue is not without a danger of being caught within the dichotomy of right wing and left wing.

Off late I have been reading Max Abrahms a terrorism researcher and professor. I recommend that you too should read him. Max asserts that in most cases in west a terrorist attack generally, polarizes voters towards right and those parties stand to benefit because it is generally assumed that right wing parties are strong in their views and policies on national security. It is especially the case in Israel.

In my opinion poverty and illiteracy are the two main reasons why people really do not worry about terrorist attacks. If people have taken Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008 seriously, Congress party would not have made it to power again in 2009 for a full 5 year term. There was nothing tangible done in reaction to 2008 terrorist attacks apart from dousing victim's feelings by hanging Ajmal Kasab through judicial trial by Indian government.  It is alleged that hanging of Kasab too was timed in such a way that it will benefit ruling party. This is just to prove that government is tough on terrorism.

The real story is nearly 50% of children under 5 year age are undernourished. A significant section of Indian populace do not get food to eat three times a day. And that is why you can have governments which will remain inefficient on every front for 4 years and by fifth year they would release plethora of schemes targeting specific vote banks through freebies and concessions. People do not mind, they would simply vote for the incumbent.

Read Maslow's theory 

Maslow's hierarchy theory comes in handy for a comparison between an Indian voter and a voter in west. Our typical Indian voter is struggling to meet his physical needs, when that elementary expectation is not met he will not think about the needs of safety and self esteem which is why when Tamil fishermen are killed by Sri Lankan navy in extreme south people are hardly bothered about it in Delhi. And if some Pakistani terrorists and army kill Indian soldiers people do not react in North east.

Indian voter is poor, illiterate, has a short term memory, he forgives grave mistakes easily. For people activism literacy is important. Extreme poverty obstructs men to become literate. So political parties keep them in constant poverty. If you are illiterate you cannot question the government. Voters forget all mistakes committed by politicians with one freebie gesture say free rice per month, quota reservation etc., it is not their fault because that is their immediate priority and they are still lurching in the layer of physical needs on Maslow's table of hierarchy theory.

In west people are literate and are well aware of their rights hence politicians are compelled to go to people directly to present their case. In case of a terrorist attack, people unite and make their political rulers answer. For the citizens of west physical needs are no more a priority but for us it is.

This is not to discount the fact that we have united resolutely whenever there was a full scale aggression by enemy, but then too people never punished governments whose misdemeanor caused serious national security crises, 1962 Chinese aggression is a case in point. If people had taken it seriously congress would not have never made it to power. Let's collectively conquer the physical needs of an ordinary Indian citizen so that his voting behavior is not affected by physical needs alone and he also analyzes facts before he decides to whom he should vote.

Reflections on a paper authored by Terrorism Scholars Max Abrahams and Karolina Lula : Why Terrorists Overestimate the Odds of Victory

Reflections on a paper authored by Max Abrahams and Karolina Lula Why Terrorists Overestimate the Odds of Victory 

Terrorism as a Puzzle:

What an apt addition of the adjective "Puzzle" with terrorism. It is certainly puzzling to see why terrorists kill civilians as if someone kills an enemy in video game for pleasure. If we do a fish bone analysis and see what was the cause, all roads will probably lead to non-adherence of real democratic ideals, where a citizen's free will is encouraged and also to ensure some one's free will does not affect others, and equal availability of opportunities to pursue one's dream. Even in the so called England, the country which is touted as the inventor of democracy, the claim which can be disputed and will not stand for an intense scrutiny, we have had Guy Falkes a terrorist, should we assume that England was despotic? Yes. Why not? Those who create colonies out of hapless communities and exploit for the benefit of small group of people they must be called despotic. we can say that it wasn't a puzzle because people's displeasure towards government was evident and they targeted government and rulers to avenge themselves of the horrible acts of governments of those days.

Yes. Organized Terrorism (freedom fight) diverted on colonial masters to an extent made them (colonizers) shudder though they never agreed it publicly. Once the goal (ie., attaining political independence) was achieved they never had to resort to such violence for their legitimate political demands, there were or are other means. Hagganah, Indian National Army of Subash Chandra Bose could be few examples who were labelled as terrorists by the occupiers. In this context we can say that those who are with Palestinian resistance are terrorists? With one exception that they have directed or directing their violence towards civilians too, which is definitely becoming counterproductive according to Max's research.

The new age Islamic Terrorism:

Thought Leftists and other pseudos would not want to precede the word "Islamic" with terrorism, but truth is indisputable, most of the countries are victims of Islamic Terrorism. To a question whether terrorists are irrational in their behavior because there is hardly any political yield out of their actions? In this light Binladen's statement comes in handy,

"We do not distinguish between those dressed in
military uniform and civilians because Our enemy is every American male, whether he is directly fighting us or paying taxes"

This One statement is enough to weigh in the mental out look of Jihadi leadership, though Max argues that there was a change in his approach towards his last days. When man reaches towards his last days, he attains wisdom. But for a hardcore Islamic mind if it is not to create Dar al-Islam it is to eliminate Dar-ul-Harb, he shall employ any means he thinks appropriate and it is his pious duty. So killing innocent civilians is allowed?

Terrorists taking cues from History:

In this aspect the defeat of Soviet Union in Afghanistan certainly bolstered Jihadis and they have chosen American Heartland as their new battle ground and Americans their enemy. This thinking pattern is certainly oblivion of the fact that it was America's fight against USSR's hegemonic ambitions and was not a fight to save Islam for which Jihadi's were used merely as instruments or means because US is aware of de-merits of a conventional war. But since then Frankenstein monster has turned against its master who had no interest to control or subdue it and suddenly he woke up to 9/11 and the rest is history. Without an organized human effort supported by military and technological supremacy heading for a showdown with a pre-eminent military power is impossible. So instead of running indefinite campaigns they (Jihadis) must organize and develop their followers for a bigger fight in future ? Not sure.Or the only intention could be to constantly irritate the super power thereby blocking it to gain further eminence?

Who won the "War on Terror”?

In this context few would argue that in the so called war on terror it was not America which won but Al-Qaida. With its domestic compulsions on economic growth and sustainability is it not becoming tough for America to manage the war on terror? It will be obviously foolish to claim that US is the victor because it could eliminate Bin laden physically, the only utility US has derived may  be "vengeance is served" and nothing more than that.
When terrorists know that governments do not concede for violence against civilians, why then they engage in terrorism?

In this context Che's advice to his foot soldier is relevant

“Avoid useless acts of terrorism. He stressed that the tactic is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys a large number of lives that would be valuable to the revolution"

This is one remarkable difference between Islamic Terrorism and Non-Islamic Terrorism. So Jihadi Terrorists know that while they cannot convert the whole world in to a Dar al-Islam in any time soon but they do not want anyone to have the power that could threaten their superiority, if at all they are going to achieve that status. So all infidels are enemies of Islam?

Terrorists drawing incorrect lessons from Guerilla campaigns?

If they plan their strategy on the premise of successful guerilla campaigns then they are certainly irrational if it is not a bounded rationality, Herbert Simon taught us there is nothing called as Rationality but bounded rationality. In that sense yes, I agree that there must be further research conducted to find out on what basis terrorists take cues from guerilla campaigns.

Poverty or Ideology which drives terrorism?

Of course I agree with Max's finding that it is not always poverty that drives terrorists. There must be something else? Indoctrination? The successful Indoctrination campaigns are run by LeT of Pakistan. The main challenge for democracies is to educate and prove their populace that terrorism is not the way to achieve their political demands and not to fall prey to terrorist's propaganda, which often exalts Jihad, is a duty towards god. So affluent, educated, rational and psychologically balanced fall in to the same pit. Apparently elected governments fail in their part making it much worse when they play with divisions. India's vote bank politics based on Muslim vote bank is a case in point.

Competitive quantifying and forecasting in political science ?

At least in US that is how it is. Going by the little knowledge I have, in US decisions and projections based out of gut feelings are considered as rubbish. But at the same time best way to part from this statistical jugglery is to go for Psychological explanations. Am I saying this because I am poor at statistics ? I could not judge right now.

"Over fifty years ago, Sidney Verba instructed social scientists to embrace psychological explanations when they outperform assumptions of perfect rationality. Contrary to the view of many political scientists, terrorists are not masterminds. Even their leaders make the same cognitive mistake as do other mortals—overestimating the political effectiveness of terrorist
campaigns by drawing false analogies from recently successful guerrilla campaigns. To a surprising degree, this simple theory can account for the global diffusion of terrorism despite its political futility"

The verbatim from Max's paper which I have reproduced above is convincing. That is Social Scientists must take Sidney Verba's instructions seriously and must not be only data guys.

 

Reflections on Terrorism Scholar Max Abraham's recently published Paper

Reflections on Terrorism Scholar Max Abraham's recently published Paper : The Credibility Paradox: Violence as a Double-Edged Sword in International Politics (International Studies Quarterly, December 2013)

The underlying theme appears to be that indulgence of violence will be a double edged sword and would be detrimental to the objectives of perpetrators (Terrorists) and challengers (States). I generalized under the following heads.

Terrorism as a double edged sword:

Yes. It is. Countries which are democratic or otherwise maintain certain degree of flexibility and attempt to accommodate perpetrator's concerns to an extent. But there is always a threshold once breached by terrorists it is common to expect that they might face stern reaction from affected states. Especially when terrorists are waging a war against a pre-eminent military power like America. The response from countries such as these could be overwhelming that the very survival of terrorist organizations could be at stake. In that context the warning given to Osama against a massive attack on America (9/11) is indeed telling, I know his rage could not take it. At least theoretically Al-Qaeda cannot boast the same capabilities which it did more than a decade ago, i.e., before 9/11 attack.

It is not only because of high intensity of crimes committed by terrorists the states react, but also to low intensity crimes given that it has been committed on a continuous basis over a period of time irrespective of whether it is after significant concessions or they are no concessions at all. To a question whether how a state would react to two terrorist attacks first one which kills 5000 civilians and another attack kills 50 civilians at a given point of time? The obvious assumption appears to be that in the former case response from challenger states could be so overwhelming that either terrorist organization will be wiped out completely or their attack capabilities will be reduced significantly apparently through the counter actions of affected state in question. And in the later case, we may think that state would be ready to talk, this will be considered as an option only if it is for the first time or few more times until the state feels that perpetrator is so adamant and will not change his stand. So time dimension must be taken in to account. If there are 100 such attacks in a span of decade or more which actually claims 5000 civilians? Then too we can expect a stern response from the state, as if it was a single massive attack. States would not react decisively until a specific threshold is breached.

A case in point could be the terrorist organization LTTE which maimed and killed thousands of the very Tamils it claimed for whom it is fighting. For more than a decade or nearly two decades SriLankan citizens endured the onslaught of LTTE violence, this in no way to discount the atrocities committed by state on minority Tamils. For all such low intensity terrorist attacks for a longer period of time, the Sri Lankan populace completely fed up and wanted to wipe them (LTTE) out completely, atleast that was the popular opinion and on that popular theme the current president acquired absolute majority in presidential elections. The arrogance of LTTE leadership was so enormous that it accepted nothing short of a separate country and denounced a viable option of devolution of powers which was acceptable to Tamils but not acceptable for the LTTE terrorists.

Maoism & Terrorism:

Like their LTTE counterparts Maoists are engaged in low intensity attacks for quite some time. And response of the state to their violence is at best none. But if Maoists kill 2000 civilians in one terrorist attack, that may be considered as threshold breached. If sanity prevails no leadership of a terror group would chose to do that, unlike Osama’s decision to target huge number of civilians in the case of 9/11 attack. It is completely based on availability of resources at some one's disposal, a bustling number of death squad in his control. I consider Maoists are most notorious when compared to hard-line Jihadis, for the simple reason being Jihadis thrive in no man's land but Maoists are confined to specific geography that too in a state which is touted as a largest functioning democracy. And they continue to operate on their to be achieved goal ie., to throw the elected democracy by 2050 and make this country a Maoist state. In this front there is a great competition between Islamist Terrorists and Maoists, where the former wants to turn this land in to Islamic State and the later wants to turn it in to a Maoist state with democratically elected government acting as a fence sitter.

Demands such as prisoner release, is it moderate compared to indiscriminate killing?

Yes. States especially large democracies easily concede for such demands because they think that they can save a lot of lives for the moment, though it will be foolish on terrorist’s part to kill all the civilians even if demands are not met, I agree with Max on this. Consider the hijack of IC 814 to Afghanistan when BJP was in power in India. Maulana Massod Azhar was released, who after his release went on to kill scores in organized attacks and not to mention the parliament attack. So I think on a broader view there is nothing moderate about terrorists or their demands, if they are they would never have resorted to terrorism?

Target population's reaction & Electorate moving to Political Right:

Pakistan is such a deviation where terrorists get absolute moral support from majority of the population, at best the target population such as Hazara shias, Baloch activists, ahmedias and Hindus have no avenues to react or make an impact. In complex societies like India unless it is a conventional war with other state (kargil war) people are insensitive towards such acts. Ie., a 2008 type terrorist attack in Mumbai may not evoke much of a response in extreme south or in North east or J&K for that matter. At worse security of state or terrorism is not even considered as an electoral issue. And there is this large scale sympathy towards Islamist Terrorism from Muslim populace and the leftists. Consolidation of votes does not happen on this issue. So we have a Muslim Vote bank, presumably a vote bank for Christians, but there is no Hindu Vote Bank if there is one BJP would be ruling India for ever. Also is it not a wonder that Americans chose to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans who are considered as far Right who acted sternly by attacking Afghanistan after 9/11? Israel is an exception I suppose, but there too its (Political Right) base is dwindling as per recent election results.

State’s violence against its citizens:

This is a most important component within the realm of political violence. When state which is a democratic, aristocratic or in any other form roughs up its deserters (as in deserters of the ruling party or clique) the fall of ruling dispensation is almost sealed, either they themselves try to strike the empire back or support an outsider. Iraq is a case in point for all the atrocities committed on Kurds by S.Hussien, they celebrated once he was condemned to death and also supported the outsider, NATO. Though democratic countries exercise restraint, there is a temptation to resort to such tactics even when they know how it ends. To quote legendary Gandhi, it is impossible to govern men without their consent.

Survey:

I hope such surveys should be conducted in India too. I am not sure if Max has such interests?

It is natural that responses for questions 3 & 4 are high on terrorism in Vignette 1.

Unofficial accounts confirm that even if Kashmir is ceded to Pakistan which has been a reason for terrorists to wage terrorist attacks on Democratic India, they will not halt attacks, because at the end they want to turn the whole Indian state in to sharia fold. Yes they would derive great satisfaction if Americans or Hindus harmed in an unrelated incident.

Looking forward to read more of Max's work.