Why the global counter-terrorism order fails India

"I was told to kill as many Hindus as possible. We were told that Muslims in J&K are not allowed to pray," confessed lanky Mohammad Abdullah, his jawline shadowed by the sparse, hesitant beard of his teenage years. Abdullah was involved in the killing of 28 slum dwellers, including many children, in Qasim Nagar on the evening of July 13, 2002, on the outskirts of Jammu city. In a powerful act of resistance, Kaka, a Gujjar Muslim and resident of the nearby Raikha forests, risked his life to subdue the armed militant on August 2 with a cot, and tied him with a rope when the militant sought shelter in his home, as the police searched the nearby forests for the hiding terrorists. Kaka alerted the police and ensured the perpetrator was handed over to the authorities. The words of Mohammad Abdullah were no different from those of Ajmal Kasab, one of the terrorists who was nabbed by a daredevil act of Mumbai police assistant sub-inspector Tukaram Omble during the Mumbai terror attack of 2008. Armed only with a lathi (bamboo stick), Omble charged at the hijacked vehicle and was shot five times after he opened the passenger door where Kasab was seated. In Mumbai, the dead also included 26 foreign nationals from 14 different countries. These are among the few cases in which terrorists who carried out carnage were arrested and can be cited as clinching evidence of Pakistani nationals’ involvement in some of the attacks that gained international attention.

- 

The recent strikes under Operation Sindoor, carried out by India in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, some of which are well-known in the public domain, mark a new chapter in India’s fight against terrorism. Apart from demonstrating capabilities to strike, it is also an illustration of the intent. At the same time, we can safely conclude that the danger of terrorism is far from over. Having studied the subject of terrorism consistently from within the society, not from conference tables, but from the ground up, including at the UNHQ in New York, I remain struck by the recurring patterns: the repetition in discourse, the familiar reactions and the predictable strategies, both domestically and internationally. In the hinterland, the question dominating everyone's mind is why an incident with eyewitnesses has failed to galvanise the international community in India’s favour. There is a deep sense of revulsion over the fact that most major powers have merely called for restraint and urged both India and Pakistan to cooperate in identifying the perpetrators. India’s diplomatic efforts to confront terrorism at the U.N. have yielded partial victories but systemic inertia. While some explanations are self-evident, there are also deeper, multidimensional reasons worth examining to understand why India’s narrative fails to resonate in the international — or rather Western — capitals, despite consistent reinforcement of the same theme in national discourse. Western understanding hol