As we observe the 10th anniversary of the dastardly Mumbai attacks, little seems to have changed. Neither has Pakistan mended its ways nor has anything substantial been done to arrest the menace at home

My most vivid memory of the 26/11 terror attack was being woken up by a friend, who told me about the dastardly attacks that unfolded in Mumbai. My closest friend in college faced his untimely demise that day. Ever since, I have closely observed the political economy of terror. So closely that terror is mostly what I write about.

What is unnerving is that little seems to have changed in the past 10 years. India may have adopted a hawkish stand against jihadi terror emanating from across the border but this strategy has not curbed the menace of terrorism.

For those of us who remember, there were a spate of terror attacks in Bengaluru and Ahmedabad in the summer of 2008. The perpetrator was the Indian Mujahideen or the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islam. This should have been a signal that something more serious was brewing but that is the very nature of a gruesome attack.

One never knows when terror strikes. On the night when the Ahmedabad attack struck, I was with my friend in Delhi’s Saket, and when we were witnessing the attack unfold, his response conveyed a message of indifference. Little did he know that he would be a victim, a few months later. That was not surprising. How many of us will really imagine being embroiled in a situation where we can become a victim of terror?

Not much has changed in Pakistan since 2008. One had hoped that a weak UPA Government would be succeeded by a bolder Government at the Centre, which would curb the alarming rise in terror in the Kashmir valley. Apart from the reported operation across the border, nothing substantial has been done do arrest the menace of terrorism.

As a country, we need to ask ourselves why our policies have been unsuccessful in addressing the draconian issue of terror. Why is it that an average citizen in Kashmir has to endure the brunt of terror and live in an environment of insecurity and fear? Can we not do much more?

One thing has become abundantly clear in the past 10 years: Pakistan lacks the will and resolve to articulate and resolve its internal mess. The recent terror attack directed against the Chinese consulate in Karachi reflects a deeper problem which the country is struggling to admit.

As Ian Talbot points out in his remarkable account of nation-building in Pakistan in his widely read book, India and Pakistan (Inventing the Nation), the Army and the bureaucracy have been instrumental in dictating the terms of engagement. The elite civil service of Pakistan inherited a tradition where political mud-slinging became a pattern.

In 1958, prior to the coup and Ayub Khan’s Presidency, a rather disconcerting pattern emerged. Power shifted to the Army and bureaucracy. They say traditions are hard to bypass. Pakistan’s case clearly exemplifies this truth. Anti-national elements with a malicious intent continue to run the show.

What must be understood is that the Partition of the Indian subcontinent was not a one-off event. What happened in 1947 had irreversible repercussions. Following the 1971 war, which led to the creation of Bangladesh, more challenges emerged. How does one identify the threats?

The Indian administration can begin by recognising that a cookie cutter formula does not apply for every country. We may be able to negotiate effectively with France but not with another country. For all our effort at the minutiae of negotiation, we must realise that our opponent has a history of denial and hostility.

Can we expect the newly-inducted Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, to deliver on what India wants? Going by his hawkish rhetoric and extreme stance on international matters, we can be certain that nothing much will change.

India’s political prowess and bureaucracy will try their level best to engage purposefully with our neighbour, but lamentably, the same story will repeat itself. If Imran Khan can suggest that Prophet Mohammad got more mention in history than Jesus Christ, then this exhibits a profound misunderstanding of history. Can he really lead the nation forward? Should the Modi Government engage in a fruitful dialogue with Pakistan?

India has condoned two important signals. The insurgency in the late 1980s should have been gauged as an imminent threat to India. Why did the Kashmir Pandits have to bear the consequences of leaving a valley they cherished for decades? Is it really fair to expect people to leave their homeland while our political capital, Delhi, stands watching the events unravel?

When one refers to globalisation, a reference is made between the ‘old media’ and the ‘new media’. The former refers to radio and cinema; whereas the latter is about satellite television and mobile phones. Several popular television channels were screening the 26/11 attacks. It will be hard to deny that in this case, the new media  cost the hapless denizens of Mumbai their lives. May the bereaved souls rest in peace. They often use the proverb: Spare the rod and spoil the child. India has been practising this for decades with its neighbour. May be, it’s time to refocus and engage in a discussion which will help us re-align our foreign policy in the best interest of national security.

(The writer is a socio-economic commentator)