December 28, 2005 ☼ Security

But don’t let it stop the new year revelry The Indian Institute of Science, one of Bangalore’s most venerable institutions, was attacked last night. One senior academic was killed. Several others received bullet injuries. While it is too early to tell who the attacker was, and what his target was, the attack is clearly an act of terrorism. Nobody in Bangalore, not least the dons in the IISc campus, expected to be attacked by terrorists. It is pointless to wholly lay the blame, as some early media reports have done, on the state police — for they act only on the instructions of their ministerial bosses and on intelligence provided by central government agencies. It goes without question though, that the state police and perhaps the CBI must now be given a clear mandate to investigate and apprehend those behind this attack. The home ministers of India and Karnataka state owe the citizens an explanation. Were there any intelligence reports suggesting that an attack in Bangalore was imminent? If so, what did the political leadership do about it? It is both urgent and important that such questions are answered for new year’s eve is around the corner. The best response Bangaloreans can give to the terrorists is by engaging in their usual revelry. Even as the government moves to secure the city, it must not allow the terrorists the pleasure of winning a bigger prize than that scientific seminar at IISc. Related Links: BombatBengluru is right: there cannot be a soft-response to terror. Abinandanan captures the feelings on campus. Update: If Bangalore was unprepared, it is perhaps less due to lack of intelligence reports, but because of a lack of intelligence. Cases in point:

State Chief Minister Dharam Singh has called an emergency meeting for Thursday. “We cannot say at this stage whether terrorists are involved in this incident,” an official at his office said. Sri Prakash Jaiswal, India’s junior home minister, told reporters in Delhi that “it would be too early to call it a terrorist attack”, adding that it could have been directed at an individual. [‘BBC’]

It is rather difficult to believe than a man firing an automatic weapon indiscriminately and carrying grenades could have been a ‘non-terrorist’ trying to assassinate an university professor. They’ll probably blame it on a disgruntled student next.

---

If you would like to share or comment on this, please discuss it on my GitHub Previous
Who needs self-governance? Next
Hitting the B-spot: Reaction

© Copyright 2003-2024. Nitin Pai. All Rights Reserved.