|
|||||
|
IT is a glorious summer in England. Except for a few uncomfortable hot days that enhanced fears of a heat stroke epidemic, the weather has remained balmy, taking the sting off England's inglorious exit from the World Cup and a very modest performance at Wimbledon. The test series against Pakistan, slated to begin at Lord's, may not also bring great cheer to the hosts, as many of the Ashes stars are still nursing injuries. These are so much for the distractions to politicians and civil servants here. But they have a more serious agenda, topping which is the constant dread of another terrorist attack on the nation's capital.
Observance of the anniversary of last July's bombing was austere and solemn. A two-minute silence marked the occasion, amidst the slight apprehension of a repeat of the savage attack. But nothing of that sort happened, possibly because of an unobtrusive vigil that was maintained throughout the day. There was no ostentatious display of law enforcement resources, but Londoners, quite confident that the Metropolitan Police had taken all precautions, went about their chores without a show of emotions or nervousness. This is the kind of policing I would like to see in India: alertness that shuns publicity but relies solely on subtle professionalism.
Underneath this picture of calm and tranquillity - it is a tribute to the police that in the year that passed by there was no major incident - there is a lurking fear that the terrorist is only biding his time, and will act at a time of his choice, when both those who are charged with preserving peace and the public are complacent. The feeling of unease is not irrational though, if one reckons the fact that the Metropolitan Police claims to have busted four alleged plots during the past year. Three of these will go to court. Seventy other investigations are under way. Sixty persons are facing trial for complicity with terrorist activities. These statistics are impressive, and they give more than an idea of the commendable work that has been put in by law enforcement, especially the police in the entire United Kingdom and MI5, the internal intelligence counterpart of our Intelligence Bureau. All this does not, however, cover up a major failure of the police, one of not identifying any one for aiding the four suicide bombers who struck on July 7, 2005 to inflict 52 deaths.
7/7 is without doubt a collective misadventure of four youth who were off their rocker. It would, however, be facile and credulous not to look beyond this, as there are many unanswered questions. Who motivated them into committing this barbaric crime? Who gave them the technical and material support? Why did one of the bombers not accompany the other three on their reconnaissance trip to London? Was there a possible fifth bomber, as some evidence - such as the unexploded material recovered from the hired car that was left behind in the Luton station by the group on the fateful morning - would slightly suggest? Until these issues are resolved, not many are willing to grant full marks to the police. This is unexceptionable, because the 29,500 exhibits, 6,000 hours of closed circuit TV footage and 13,000 witness statements in police possession would mean nothing until they lead to at least one of the evil brains that showed the way to Shehzad Tanweer, Mohammed Sidique Khan, Hasib Hussain and Jermaine Lindsay.
For quite some time, in the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary, the theory floating around was that the group was acting in isolation, driven purely by their own fanaticism and disgust at the perceived plight of the average Muslim in England. The release of a videotape that was fed to the Al Jazeera, the West Asian TV channel that has won fame and some infamy as well, on the eve of the July 7 anniversary is a confirmation - if a confirmation at all was needed - that the Al Qaeda and its followers had some role in the attack. The tape received by the channel on July 6 featured both Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's second-in-command, and Shehzad Tanweer and excerpts from a scene that portrayed recruits making explosives and firing automatic weapons. In his message, which was only partially telecast by Al Jazeera, Tanweer declared that his action was provoked by the British foreign policy and maltreatment of Muslims in the country. Significantly, he added that such actions would continue until British troops were withdrawn from both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is this threat that has triggered police fears that more spectacular terrorist operations were possible in the near future. It also accounts for their assessment that for every plot uncovered, there could be many more that remain under ground, waiting to be executed at an unguarded moment.
The July 7 anniversary has provided the occasion for a renewed scrutiny of the Blair government's stance on and the state of preparedness to face the challenges ahead. Naturally, the police, especially the Metropolitan police, have figured prominently in this debate. Blair's hint in Parliament that he was not exactly happy at the response of Muslim leaders to the government perception that unless they were proactive, the threat of terrorism would not fade. This muted criticism of Islamic organisations has naturally provoked adverse reactions from the community which, more than ever before, stands divided, between those who would like to act in tandem with the authorities and those who are opposed to it. Some of the latter genuinely believe that there was no need to be wholly apologetic about the July 7 bombings. A recent Times- ITV News survey revealed that a small minority of Muslims in the U.K. (7 per cent) considered suicide attacks on civilians were justified under some circumstances. There were also those who thought that the four bombers should be regarded as "martyrs". Of the survey, 16 per cent respondents believed that while the attacks might have been wrong, the cause behind them was right.
One should not read too much into the findings of such surveys, which could carry biases and permit distortions by those who assemble their outcome. It will not be correct, however, to shun formulating some broad generalisations reflecting the mood of a well-defined ethnic group.
Both Prime Minister Tony Blair and Muslim leaders are weighed down by some dilemmas. The government has all the time to be wary of the danger of neutralising responsible Muslim leaders with a positive approach through maintaining a `cosy' relationship and encouraging them to speak against extremism. At the same time, it has to lend more than a helping hand to these leaders in the hope that they will make a difference to the existing difficult situation. An Imam in Leicester has gone to the extent of saying that people like him who worked with the government had been sidelined and actually humiliated. This is why recent efforts to mobilise opinion against extremism, such as the coalition of 14 Islamic groups that would speak out on the subject as also undertake research on the lure of terrorism, have not taken off the ground. One grievance of Muslim leaders is that the government has turned down their demand for a public inquiry into July 7 bombings. Another disappointment has been the government's whittling down of the recommendations of seven Muslim working groups that had come up with 64 measures to stem terrorism and infuse confidence in the community of government's genuine desire to improve the Muslim plight.
Police bias
What has been the greatest source of embarrassment to the government is the average Muslim's perception that the police were biased against him. It is hard to dismiss such a perception as fanciful, particularly in the context of the Home Office's own admission that an Asian, compared to a White, was twice as likely to be stopped and searched by the police. What gives grist to the mill is the occasional police slip-up suggestive of some heavy-handed field work. Readers would recall last year's shocking incident in which the anti-terrorist cell shot and killed an innocent Brazilian electrician under the mistaken belief that he belonged to a terrorist group. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) that probed the happening is believed to have given an adverse finding that could even result in a prosecution of some police officers and the exit of Commissioner Sir Ian Blair. The latest goof-up has been the shooting (June 2, ) of one Abdul Kahar at Forest Gate in East London. The incident was sequel to wrong information that the house in which Kahar and his brother Abul Koyair were living was being used to produce a chemical device. The brothers were arrested and later released without a charge. Such police action, however unbiased and unavoidable in the trying circumstances under which the police function, does not exactly enhance the Metropolitan police's reputation for professionalism or the government's own objectivity. Interestingly, this incident is also going before the IPCC for an investigation, much to the discomfiture of the police.
On their part, the police are doing a lot to beef up their resources for tackling future terrorist attacks. The focus is rightly on enhancing intelligence capacity. The MI5, which was just 2,000-strong until five years ago, has now added 500 to its ranks. By 2008, it will have a workforce of 3,500. It is a moot question whether mere numbers will do the trick of receiving advance warning of an attack. No doubt the 1.6 million-strong Muslim community in the U.K. is not a picture of cohesion, a situation that in a way works to the advantage of intelligence officers looking all the time for operational tip-offs. There are divisions and divisions among U.K. Muslims. For instance, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and its affiliate, the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), differ on many issues, with the latter showing itself to be a little more radical. Then there is the third group, the British Muslim Forum (BMF), which accuses the MCB of being too austere and rigid. Normally, such a split community can be exploited by the government's intelligence outfits to ferret out information that can help to bust conspiracies. There is also the danger of maliciously false information being fed to public agencies, something that could lead to a repeat of what happened last month in Forest Gate.
Ultimately, if Islamist terrorism has to be tackled imaginatively, answers will have to be found to two basic questions. Is the Blair government right in talking always to Muslim leaders and not directly to the community? There is one school of thought that this is a wrong strategy that serves only to solidify the Muslim feeling that he is identified more by his religion and not by his loyalty to the nation as a British citizen. This is a ticklish issue because the government may not like to alienate a set of leaders, some of whom have the negative influence of whipping up opinion against the government and the Labour Party.
More important is the reading of the mind of the younger generation among Muslims. What draws them to religious fanaticism, in an ambience like the U.K. where religion assumes a secondary role in life, is an unsolved mystery. If you study the profile of one of the bombers, Shehzad Tanweer, you will be baffled as much as his parents are to this day. By all accounts, Tanweer was a gifted student with significant achievements, both in studies and sports. After three A levels at school, he had successfully applied to join the Leeds Metropolitan University. He had won the first place in the Leeds athletic championships, and was being considered to play for the Yorkshire Cricket Club. More than these, he was an extrovert with a circle of friends. It was not for nothing that his teacher, while commending his college application, described him as "motivated, modest and mature". How do you expect such a normal youngster to be drawn to extremism and resort to murder of innocent persons? This is the riddle that confounds the policymaker, not merely in the U.K, but all of us in the rest of the world as well.
Printer friendly
page
|
