Florida Terror: India’s Weak Anti-Terror Strategy Seems No Worse Than US’ Aggressive One 

The biggest terrorist killing on American soil, where Omar Mir Seddique Mateen gunned down 50 people and injured many more in a Florida nightclub yesterday (12 June), busts the myth that Americans have somehow been more effective in preventing terror than the rest of the world. According to the terrorist’s father, Mateen was homophobic, and so the killings may have less to do with his Islamist sympathies and more with his personal biases against gays.

But a CNN report notes that Mateen called 911 and announced his support for Islamic State. His horrific act may officially be unconnected to Islamist terror, but it does not matter. Who did it, and for what reason is not material to deciding whether terrorism has happened or not.

The holy texts of the two main Abrahamic religions are homophobic, and America’s constitutional guarantees on religious freedom ensure that you can retain your homophobia based on your religious bigotry. Many states have what are called Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) which allow government officials to refuse to do their jobs by claiming it militates against religious beliefs. (This means companies which refuse to employ gays or state officials who refuse to register same-sex marriages even where they are legal can claim a violation of their own constitutional rights).

Indirectly, thus, America sanctifies homophobia, and it cannot pretend that Christian and Islamic beliefs in this area have nothing to do with people who decide to act based on their personal or religious beliefs. It is indeed odd that America’s first amendment, which promised a hands-off policy on religious matters, allows bigots to use religion to justify bigotry.

The second – and more important – point worth discussing is this: has the American approach to combatting terror fared any better than ours?

India does very little about terrorism. Our security is lax, our intelligence is poor, and our response to terrorism when it happens is tentative and inefficient (consider how we handled the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks). We have a lackadaisical non-policy on terror.

America’s is just the opposite: its anti-terror policy, among other things, includes extreme surveillance, both in America and abroad, and targeted assassinations of terrorists it thinks will plot terrorism on American soil (Read Mark Mazetti’s The Way of The Knife to learn about America’s drone-led assassination culture). A Wikipedia listing shows no less than 11 terrorist acts by Muslims post-9/11 on American soil, including the Boston marathon bombings of 2013 and the husband-wife terrorist killings at San Bernardino in 2015. Sunday’s killings in the Florida nightclub, of course, were the worst of the lot. Whether this was the result of a private directive from Allah to kill gay infidels, or due to self-radicalisation on the social media, or Mateen’s personal attitudes to gays is irrelevant.

The fact that America, despite its huge investments in anti-terror policing, has consistently failed to prevent terror on its soil – whether perpetrated by racists, psychopaths, Christian fundamentalists or Islamists – tells us something. To reduce terrorism only to Islamist terror is foolish, for America does not lack for loonies and psychopaths willing to open fire on hapless groups at Gurudwaras or churches or even night clubs.

The fact that India, despite almost doing nothing, has not faced any higher level of terrorism (barring state-led terrorism from Pakistan, whether in J&K or Pathankot) also tells us something.

Maybe, Newton’s third law of motion, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, holds good in the area of terror and counter-terror.

Countries that take an extra-aggressive stand on terror seem to invite more extreme efforts by terrorists to strike back than countries that learn to roll with the punches.

This is not meant to be a validation of India’s do-nothing anti-terror non-strategy, for the state has no business taking such a lackadaisical attitude towards the protection of its citizens from terror. India can, and must, do more to prevent terrorism on its soil, but the fact that our citizens are more than willing to get back to normal after every terrorist outrage is surely acting as a disincentive to more terrorism.

America has the advantage of having peaceful neighbours on both its northern and southern borders, and India has radical Islamists plotting mayhem on both the western and eastern borders. But America’s iron fist solution is not working any better than our velvet glove of negligence and inaction.

The only advantage India has is not something to be proud of: an ability to sacrifice more lives more cheaply than Americans. This means the terrorist is finding the returns from terrorism diminishing.

Terror works when the returns from it – in terms of outrage, official blowbacks, and publicity to the terrorist – are higher than the cost to the terrorist or his organisation. India offers diminishing returns on investment.

Somewhere, in all that muddling through, we seem to have struck on the right answer to terror. Not to be afraid of it. This is not an excuse for not seeking better intelligence or going for preventive measures, but it surely has to be part of the answer to combatting terrorism.