There's an
article about terrorism (nope, don't bother with the link) in today's DC by Kuldip Nayar. Nothing wrong with this, except that a) the article adds nothing to the discourse b) it doesn't add any new bits of information c) it does not provide any insightful commentary. Then what *does* it do? Here are some samples:
Every Indian must ask himself why terrorism is rearing its head in the country.
OK Chief, why is terrorism rearing its head in the country?
The terrorists who attacked the dargah are hardly concerned with Jayaprakash’s message of non violence.
No sh*t, Sherlock.
It has a bit to do with poverty or lack of education, but more with fundamentalism.
You think?
What happened in Ajmer or Ludhiana may have been a violent protest against pending cases of injustice.
Sigh.
New Delhi’s problem is that it has no well-thought-out, long-term strategy to tackle terrorism. There are ad hoc efforts, with little coordination between the Centre and the states. The United States, a larger country than ours, has not experienced any act of terrorism after 9/11. The reason is that the intelligence agencies there work hard, not like those in India which do not follow up even prior warnings. India is a soft state which requires to change its attitude, but it does not need another special police force or a harsher law.
In other news, the Sun rose in the east today.
